Vol 17, No 2 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-11-13

open access

Page views 598
Article views/downloads 711
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Access to a dermatoscope during dermatology courses motivates students’ towards thorough skin examination

Magdalena Chrabąszcz, Cezary Maciejewski, Teresa Wolniewicz, Rosanna Alda-Malicka, Patrycja Gajda, Joanna Czuwara, Lidia Rudnicka
Oncol Clin Pract 2021;17(2):47-52.

Abstract

Introduction. Dermatoscope is a tool for a skin examination, used especially in early detection of malignant skin lesions. Non-dermatologists are being trained for opportunistic melanoma detection with the usage of dermatoscopy, however, still non-satisfactory. This study was aimed to determine whether practical dermoscopy adjunct to traditional, lecture and seminar-based medical school curriculum would improve the perceived relevance of regular skin examination and basic skin lesions differentiation.

Material and method. Fourth-year medical students participating in a 3-week-long dermatology course were randomly assigned to two groups: the first one called A with limited access to a dermatoscope and the second one called B, with unlimited access to dermatoscopes throughout the course. All participants answered surveys concerning their attitude towards skin examination, with a rating scale from 1 to 5, before and after the course. Also, all participants completed an image-based dermoscopy test for distinguishing benign from malignant skin lesions.

Results. Students assigned to group B significantly improved their perceived importance of routine skin examination (mean scores before 4.38; after 4.57, P = 0.03). No such tendency was observed in group A — before 4.40, after 4.49 (P = 0.29). Students in the group with higher dermatoscope availability considered buying a dermatoscope more often (61%) than those without (44%) (P = 0.037). No significant score difference was observed when testing skin lesions identification, mean for extended access 7.84 vs. normal 7.64 points (P = 0.69).

Conclusions. Higher availability of dermatoscopy during dermatology rotations may encourage students to use this tool in future clinical practice and improve early detection of malignant skin lesions.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Rogers HW, Weinstock MA, Feldman SR, et al. ncidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer (keratinocyte carcinomas) in the U.S. population, 2012. JAMA Dermatol. 2015; 151(10): 1081–1086.
  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(1): 7–30.
  3. Bickers D, Lim H, Margolis D, et al. The burden of skin diseases: 2004 a joint project of the American Academy of Dermatology Association and the Society for Investigative Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006; 55(3): 490–500.
  4. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018; 391(10125): 1023–1075.
  5. Forsea AM. Melanoma Epidemiology and Early Detection in Europe: Diversity and Disparities. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020; 10(3): e2020033.
  6. %A, P.R.A.P.J.W.A.A.N.-G.A.J.F.A.E.K.-W.A.T.Ś.A.A.J.A.M.S., Cutaneous melanoma — diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines in 2016. Vol. 11. 2015.
  7. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: I. Common and atypical naevi. Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41(1): 28–44.
  8. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. Sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41(1): 45–60.
  9. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: III. Family history, actinic damage and phenotypic factors. Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41(14): 2040–2059.
  10. Brown KF, Rumgay H, Dunlop C, et al. The fraction of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 2015. Br J Cancer. 2018; 118(8): 1130–1141.
  11. Mayer JE, Swetter SM, Fu T, et al. Screening, early detection, education, and trends for melanoma: current status (2007-2013) and future directions: Part I. Epidemiology, high-risk groups, clinical strategies, and diagnostic technology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014; 71(4): 599.e1–599.e12; quiz 610, 599.e12.
  12. Gulia A, Brunasso AG, Massone C. Dermoscopy: distinguishing malignant tumors from benign. Expert Review of Dermatology. 2014; 7(5): 439–458.
  13. Vestergaard ME, Macaskill P, Holt PE, et al. Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: a meta-analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol. 2008; 159(3): 669–676.
  14. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, et al. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol. 2001; 137(10): 1343–1350.
  15. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol. 2002; 3(3): 159–165.
  16. Thomas L, Puig S. Dermoscopy, Digital Dermoscopy and Other Diagnostic Tools in the Early Detection of Melanoma and Follow-up of High-risk Skin Cancer Patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017; Suppl 218: 14–21.
  17. Marghoob A, Swindle L, Moricz C, et al. Instruments and new technologies for the in vivo diagnosis of melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003; 49(5): 777–797.
  18. Kardynal A, Olszewska M. Modern non-invasive diagnostic techniques in the detection of early cutaneous melanoma. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2014; 8(1): 1–8.
  19. Marghoob AA, Usatine RP, Jaimes N. Dermoscopy for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2013; 88(7): 441–450.
  20. Liebman TN, Goulart JM, Soriano R, et al. Effect of dermoscopy education on the ability of medical students to detect skin cancer. Arch Dermatol. 2012; 148(9): 1016–1022.
  21. Robinson JK, Jain N, Marghoob AA, et al. A Randomized Trial on the Efficacy of Mastery Learning for Primary Care Provider Melanoma Opportunistic Screening Skills and Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2018; 33(6): 855–862.
  22. Marchetti MA, Fonseca M, Dusza SW, et al. Dermatoscopic imaging of skin lesions by high school students: a cross-sectional pilot study. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2015; 5(1): 11–28.
  23. Geller AC, Venna S, Prout M, et al. Should the skin cancer examination be taught in medical school? Arch Dermatol. 2002; 138(9): 1201–1203.
  24. Dolan NC. Skin cancer control in the primary care setting: are we making any progress? J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16(5): 342–343.
  25. Terushkin V, Warycha M, Levy M, et al. Analysis of the benign to malignant ratio of lesions biopsied by a general dermatologist before and after the adoption of dermoscopy. Arch Dermatol. 2010; 146(3): 343–344.
  26. Chen LL, Liebman TN, Soriano RP, et al. One-year follow-up of dermoscopy education on the ability of medical students to detect skin cancer. Dermatology. 2013; 226(3): 267–273.
  27. Garg A, Wang J, Reddy SB, et al. Integrated Skin Exam Consortium. Curricular factors associated with medical students' practice of the skin cancer examination: an educational enhancement initiative by the integrated skin exam consortium. JAMA Dermatol. 2014; 150(8): 850–855.
  28. Koelink CJL, Vermeulen KM, Kollen BJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dermoscopy in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014; 28(11): 1442–1449.
  29. Westerhoff K, McCarthy WH, Menzies SW. Increase in the sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis by primary care physicians using skin surface microscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2000; 143(5): 1016–1020.