Background: In 1995, the French consensus conference on management of patients with grade I malignant melanoma recommended clinical examination for patient monitoring. To date, only one survey has been conducted to evaluate these recommendations and their consequences, providing no means of assessing follow-up practices. The aim of this study was to assess follow-up practices in patients with grade I malignant melanoma followed in an outpatient private practice setting and in a hospital setting with regular appointments.
Patients and methods: This retrospective study was conducted in collaboration with private practice and hospital dermatologists, all members of an association of continuing medical education. Medical records of 584 patients with grade I malignant melanoma who had undergone surgery between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 1995 were reviewed. Three hundred twenty-nine patients were followed in an exclusively outpatient setting by their private dermatologist and 265 were followed in a hospital setting. Follow-up data were: age, sex, date of surgical excision of the melanoma, Breslow thickness, date of each follow-up visit, presence of possible metastases and mode of diagnosis.
Results: Patient features were different in the two groups: mainly greater Breslow thickness and more frequent metastatic course in patients followed in a hospital setting. Among all patients, 65 (11 p. 100) developed metastases. Diagnosis of metastasis was made clinically in 95 p. 100 whatever the mode of monitoring considered. The number of patients lost to follow-up was 11p. 100 among those followed in a hospital setting and 42 p. 100 in those followed in a private practice setting. Patients lost to follow-up had a higher risk of developing metastasis as their average Breslow thickness was 1.7 mm.
Conclusion: This study shows that patients followed in a hospital setting have a more severe prognosis than patients followed in private practice. It confirms that systematic use of complementary tests is of little interest in detecting metastases since over the period considered, the diagnosis of metastasis was made clinically in most cases. It also discloses difficulties encountered in exclusively outpatient follow-up as a high number of patients were lost to follow-up in this setting. A systematic appointment fixed by the private dermatologist during the follow-up period appears to be needed to ensure good quality follow-up. Such an appointment system should help reduce the number of patients lost to follow-up.