4.6 Article

Evidence concerning the accusation that melanoma is overdiagnosed

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.06.010

关键词

aging; biopsies; histopathology; melanoma; melanoma pandemic; overdiagnosis; public health; skin cancer screenings; ultraviolet exposure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Melanoma incidence has increased since the 1970s, while melanoma-specific mortality has remained stable. Factors contributing to the rise in incidence include an aging population, ultraviolet exposure, increased skin biopsies, skin cancer screenings, and histopathologic criteria.
Background: Melanoma is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies in the United States and is responsible for the majority of deaths from skin cancer. Objective: Since the 1970s, the incidence of melanoma has risen appreciably while melanoma-specific mortality has remained stable. This has raised a debate about potential overdiagnosis of melanoma. Herein, we review temporal trends in melanoma incidence and mortality and explore factors that may contribute to observed trends, including an aging population in the United States, ultraviolet exposure, increased numbers of biopsies by dermatologists and physician extenders, skin cancer screenings, histopathology criteria, and historic underdiagnosis. Additionally, we discuss melanoma overdiagnosis and the extent to which it may contribute to current trends. Methods: The literature was reviewed. Results: Several factors may contribute to an increased incidence of melanoma, including an aging population, ultraviolet exposure, increased skin biopsies, skin cancer screenings, histopathologic criteria, historic underdiagnosis, and current overdiagnosis. Limitations: Further studies are required to determine exactly which tumors are being overdiagnosed, and how to improve patient outcomes with adjustment to physician's practice. Conclusion: The rise in the incidence of melanoma observed since the 1970s is likely multifactorial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据