Tromme Isabelle, Devleesschauwer Brecht, Beutels Philippe, Richez Pauline, Praet Nicolas, Sacré Laurine, Marot Liliane, Van Eeckhout Pascal, Theate Ivan, Baurain Jean-François, Lambert Julien, Legrand Catherine, Thomas Luc, Speybroeck Niko
Department of Dermatology, Centre du Cancer, Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Public Health, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 14;9(10):e109339. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109339. eCollection 2014.
Dermoscopy is a technique which improves melanoma detection. Optical dermoscopy uses a handheld optical device to observe the skin lesions without recording the images. Sequential digital dermoscopy imaging (SDDI) allows storage of the pictures and their comparison over time. Few studies have compared optical dermoscopy and SDDI from an economic perspective.
The present observational study focused on patients with one-to-three atypical melanocytic lesions, i.e. lesions considered as suspicious by optical dermoscopy. It aimed to calculate the "extra-costs" related to the process of melanoma detection. These extra-costs were defined as the costs of excision and pathology of benign lesions and/or the costs of follow-up by SDDI. The objective was to compare these extra-costs when using optical dermoscopy exclusively versus optical dermoscopy with selective use of SDDI.
In a first group of patients, dermatologists were adequately trained in optical dermoscopy but worked without access to SDDI. They excised all suspicious lesions to rule out melanoma. In a second group, the dermatologists were trained in optical and digital dermoscopy. They had the opportunity of choosing between immediate excision or follow-up by SDDI (with delayed excision if significant change was observed). The comparison of extra-costs in both groups was made possible by a decision tree model and by the division of the extra-costs by the number of melanomas diagnosed in each group. Belgian official tariffs and charges were used.
The extra-costs in the first and in the second group were respectively €1,613 and €1,052 per melanoma excised. The difference was statistically significant.
Using the Belgian official tariffs and charges, we demonstrated that the selective use of SDDI for patients with one-to-three atypical melanocytic lesions resulted in a significant cost reduction.
皮肤镜检查是一种可提高黑色素瘤检出率的技术。光学皮肤镜检查使用手持光学设备观察皮肤病变,但不记录图像。连续数字皮肤镜成像(SDDI)则可存储图片并随时间进行比较。很少有研究从经济角度比较光学皮肤镜检查和SDDI。
本观察性研究聚焦于有一至三个非典型黑素细胞性病变的患者,即光学皮肤镜检查认为可疑的病变。其目的是计算与黑色素瘤检测过程相关的“额外费用”。这些额外费用被定义为良性病变的切除和病理检查费用及/或SDDI随访费用。目的是比较仅使用光学皮肤镜检查与选择性使用SDDI的光学皮肤镜检查时的这些额外费用。
在第一组患者中,皮肤科医生接受了充分的光学皮肤镜检查培训,但工作时无法使用SDDI。他们切除所有可疑病变以排除黑色素瘤。在第二组中,皮肤科医生接受了光学和数字皮肤镜检查培训。他们有机会选择立即切除或通过SDDI随访(如果观察到显著变化则延迟切除)。通过决策树模型以及将额外费用除以每组诊断出的黑色素瘤数量,对两组的额外费用进行了比较。使用了比利时官方的收费标准。
每组切除的每个黑色素瘤的额外费用在第一组和第二组中分别为1613欧元和1052欧元。差异具有统计学意义。
使用比利时官方的收费标准,我们证明了对有一至三个非典型黑素细胞性病变的患者选择性使用SDDI可显著降低成本。