PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 3, 2026Clinical and Experimental Dermatology0 citationsOpen Access

The carbon footprint of surgical and non-surgical skin cancer appointments

View Full Paper
JWJake T W WilliamsKBKaty J L BellRMRachael L. Morton

Key Points

  • This study aimed to estimate the carbon emissions of various dermatology appointments related to skin cancer care.
  • Estimated carbon footprint in kg CO2-e using process-based life cycle assessment.
  • Included factors such as patient transport, equipment, and energy consumption.
  • Investigated each appointment type as a mutually exclusive event.
  • Total emissions were 11.11 kg CO2-e for full skin examination, 10.75 kg CO2-e for total body photography, and 12.21 kg CO2-e for lesion excision.
  • Patient transport accounted for 10.72 kg CO2-e across all appointment types.
  • Emissions were similar among appointment types and primarily driven by transport.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The carbon emissions of the healthcare sector are large and there is a growing literature dedicated to estimating the carbon footprint of healthcare activities. The carbon footprint of dermatology services is of particular interest in Australia due to the high burden of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer and the geographically dispersed population. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to estimate the carbon emissions of an appointment for dermoscopy guided full skin examination, total body photography, and the excision of a lesion suspicious for melanoma or other skin cancers for patients attending specialist dermatology clinics in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: The carbon footprint of each appointment type was estimated in kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) using process-based life cycle assessment. We included patient transport, single-use equipment, reusable equipment requiring treatment, and energy. Each appointment type was investigated as a mutually exclusive event. RESULTS: Total carbon emissions were 11.11 kg CO2-e (95% CI 1.93-55.53) for a full skin examination, 10.75 kg CO2-e (95% CI 1.60-54.54) for total body photography, and 12.21 kg CO2-e (95% CI 2.92-61.58) for the excision of a lesion suspicious for melanoma. Patient transport was responsible for 10.72 kg CO2-e for each appointment type. CONCLUSIONS: Carbon emissions associated with dermoscopy guided full skin examination, total body photography, and the excision of a lesion suspicious for melanoma or other skin cancers were similar and largely driven by patient transport. Efforts to reduce emissions related to skin cancer care should focus on reducing the need for patients to attend the clinic, where it is clinically safe to do so.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Williams et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1fc718dee9eb8c0dce7e7fhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llag229
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Virtual consultations for skin lesion assessment reduce carbon footprint compared to in-person review2024 · 2 citations
  2. 2The carbon footprint of Australian health care2018 · 536 citations
  3. 3Methods of melanoma detection and of skin monitoring for individuals at high risk of melanoma: new Australian clinical practice2018 · 47 citations
  4. 4Melanoma overdiagnosis: why it matters and what can be done about it2022 · 25 citations
  5. 5COP26: Fifty countries commit to climate resilient and low carbon health systems2021 · 48 citations