Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN: The MELFO (MELanoma FOllow-up) study is an international phase III randomized controlled trial comparing an experimental low-intensity schedule against current national guidelines. BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for the follow-up of sentinel node-negative melanoma patients are lacking. METHODS: Overall, 388 adult patients diagnosed with sentinel node-negative primary melanoma patients were randomized in cancer centers in the Netherlands and United Kingdom between 2006 and 2016. The conventional schedule group (control: n=196) was reviewed as per current national guidelines. The experimental schedule group (n=192) was reviewed in a reduced-frequency schedule. Quality of life was the primary outcome measurement. Detection rates and survival outcomes were recorded. Patient satisfaction rates and compliance with allocated schedules were compared. RESULTS: At 5 years, both arms expressed high satisfaction with their regimens (>97%). This study found no significant group effect on any patient-reported outcome measure scores between the follow-up protocols. In total, 75/388 (19.4%) patients recurred, with no difference in incidence found between the 2 arms (hazard ratio=0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.39, P =0.57). Self-examination was the method of detection for 25 experimental patients and 32 control patients (75.8% vs. 76.2%; P =0.41). This study found no difference in any survival outcomes between the 2 study arms (disease-free survival: hazard ratio=1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.49-2.07, P =0.99). CONCLUSIONS: A reduced-intensity, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage-adjusted follow-up schedule for sentinel node-negative melanoma patients is a safe strategy, and patient self-examination is effective for recurrence detection with no evidence of diagnostic delay. Patients' acceptance is very high.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moncrieff et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: