Conflicts of interest
No conflict of interest.
Funding sources
This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente 5 per 1000 funds.
Dear Editor,
The COVID‐19 pandemic prompted drastic containment measures and a rearrangement of healthcare services. Several papers highlighted the reduction of melanoma diagnoses and related activities 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ; however, limited data are available on healthcare quality and patient safety. 6
In Italy, the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) documented the decrease in first visits, diagnoses and surgeries related to melanoma during February–April 2020. 1 As a follow‐up study, the IMI and the Italian Association of Melanoma Patients (AIMaMe) undertook a nationwide survey to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on healthcare quality and patient safety in melanoma management. AIMaMe members were invited to fill in an online questionnaire, and participants were divided into two groups based on when they received the indication for excision: pre‐pandemic (Group 1, n = 334) and pandemic (Group 2, n = 252; Table 1).
Table 1.
Survey questionnaire
| The dermatological examination in which melanoma was diagnosed took place: | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From January 2019 to January 2020 | From February 2020 to December 2020 | p‐value† | |||
| Why did you undergo the dermatological examination in which melanoma was diagnosed? | |||||
| Suspicious skin lesion | 141 | 42.2% | 110 | 43.7% | |
| Regular nevus check‐up | 150 | 44.9% | 105 | 41.7% | |
| Other reason | 43 | 12.9% | 37 | 14.7% | 0.688 |
| Who suggested to undergo a dermatological examination? | |||||
| Myself | 116 | 34.7% | 90 | 35.7% | |
| Dermatologist | 119 | 35.6% | 82 | 32.5% | |
| Family member or friend | 40 | 12.0% | 33 | 13.1% | |
| General practitioner | 32 | 9.6% | 25 | 9.9% | |
| Other medical doctor | 27 | 8.1% | 22 | 8.7% | 0.672 |
| How long did you have to wait for an appointment for the dermatological examination? | |||||
| <1 month | 174 | 52.1% | 151 | 60.0% | |
| 1–3 months | 120 | 35.9% | 61 | 24.2% | |
| 3–6 months | 31 | 9.3% | 20 | 7.9% | |
| 6–12 months | 9 | 2.7% | 20 | 7.9% | 0.001 |
| How long did you have to wait for the surgical removal of your melanoma? | |||||
| <15 days | 120 | 35.9% | 107 | 42.5% | |
| 15–60 days | 175 | 52.4% | 127 | 50.4% | |
| 2–6 months | 34 | 10.2% | 15 | 6.0% | |
| 6–12 months | 5 | 1.5% | 3 | 1.2% | 0.173 |
| How long did you have to wait to receive the histological report after surgery? | |||||
| <15 days | 155 | 46.4% | 130 | 51.6% | |
| up to 1 month | 137 | 41.0% | 99 | 39.3% | |
| >1 month | 42 | 12.6% | 23 | 9.1% | 0.295 |
| Did COVID‐19 restrictions cause a delay of … | … at least one follow‐up visit? | … the first follow‐up visit? | |||
| No | 259 | 77.5% | 187 | 85.0% | |
| Yes, my decision | 19 | 5.7% | 11 | 5.0% | |
| Yes, decision by the health facility management | 56 | 16.8% | 22 | 10.0% | 0.069 |
| If yes, how long was the visit delayed? | |||||
| <1 month | 8 | 10.7% | 9 | 27.3% | |
| 1–3 months | 34 | 45.3% | 15 | 45.5% | |
| 3–6 months | 15 | 20.0% | 7 | 21.2% | |
| >6 months | 18 | 24.0% | 2 | 6.1% | 0.042 |
| How afraid did you feel during medical encounters (for melanoma surgery or follow‐up visit) during the COVID‐19 pandemic? | 4 | (0–10) | 4 | (0–10) | 0.665 |
| Did you feel safe while undergoing melanoma surgery or follow‐up visits during the COVID‐19 pandemic? | |||||
| Yes | 283 | 84.7% | 237 | 94.0% | |
| No | 51 | 15.3% | 15 | 6.0% | <0.001 |
| Overall, how do you rate the management of your melanoma during the COVID‐19 pandemic? | |||||
| Excellent | 152 | 45.5% | 145 | 57.5% | |
| Good | 130 | 38.9% | 85 | 33.7% | |
| Fair | 42 | 12.6% | 14 | 5.6% | |
| Poor or Bad | 10 | 3.0% | 8 | 3.2% | 0.006 |
| In your opinion, how did the management of melanoma change during the COVID‐19 pandemic compared to the pre‐pandemic era? | |||||
| Unchanged | 270 | 80.8% | |||
| Improved | 20 | 6.0% | |||
| Worsened | 44 | 13.2% | |||
Chi‐square test for categorical variables, and rank sum test (comparing medians) for continuous variables.
Regarding patient management, we found no differences between the groups. The main reasons for the dermatology visit were a suspicious lesion (42–44%) and a routine clinical evaluation of nevi (42–45%). There were also no differences in who suggested the visit: the most frequent answers were ‘myself’ (35–36%) and ‘a dermatologist’ (36–32%). A waiting time <15 days was non‐significantly more frequent in Group 2 for surgical removal (42.5% vs. 35.9%) and histological report (51.6% vs. 46.4%). Moderate, yet significant, differences emerged regarding the wait time for the dermatologist appointment: in group 1, 88.0% of patients had to wait <3 months, and 2.7% >6 months, while in group 2, these percentages were 84.1% and 7.9%.
In terms of healthcare quality, Teuscher et al. 7 and Raza et al. 8 observed a 15–17% of postponed or cancelled appointments, mostly due to concern about COVID‐19. Furthermore, in Raza et al., 8 lack of check‐ups or long waiting times were more frequent during lockdown than before (72% vs. 28%). We also observed a lower rate of patients reporting delayed follow‐up visits; but unexpectedly, among patients in group 2 (15% vs. 22.5% in group 1, 10% vs. 16.8% of which by decision of the health facilities).
Concerning perceived safety, the patients in the two groups did not differ in their fear of undergoing a procedure during the pandemic, and the percentage of patients who felt safe was even higher in group 2 (94.0% vs. 84.0%). This was consistent with Kurzhals et al., 6 who observed that the pandemic did not substantially affect the overall quality of life of skin cancer patients. The percentage of patients who considered melanoma management to be good/excellent during the pandemic was also higher in Group 2 (91.2% vs. 84.4%). The significantly higher rates of satisfaction and perceived safety in group 2 could be due to the fact that some of these patients received the diagnosis after the end of the lockdown, when the healthcare facilities had already re‐organized their activities.
Finally, most group 1 patients (80.8%) stated that melanoma management was unchanged during the pandemic, while a smaller percentage reported a worsening (13.2%) or an improvement (6.0%).
A limitation of this study was that questionnaires were filled in only online. Patients less digitally competent, especially the elderly, may thus be under‐represented. Survey participants may also be more health‐conscious than non‐participants, thereby possibly creating a selection bias. Finally, teledermatology was not investigated in our survey due to ongoing clinical validation and medico‐legal restrictions.. 9 , 10
In conclusion, healthcare quality and patient safety appear to have been generally guaranteed in melanoma management during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Italy. Given the ongoing situation, additional multi‐centre studies are required to determine the long‐term impact of the pandemic on melanoma patients.
Acknowledgements
Italian Association of Melanoma patients (AIMaMe), a non‐profit patient association, for their great contribution and support to patients and physicians. IMI includes members of the Scientific Board to be considered as co‐authors: Daniela Massi (Florence, Italy), Corrado Caracò (Naples, Italy), Virginia Ferraresi (Rome, Italy), Antonio M. Grimaldi (Benevento, Italy), Roberto Patuzzo (Milan, Italy), Mario Mandalà (Perugia, Italy) and Paola Queirolo (Milan, Italy). Vicki F Weinstein, PhD for her high‐quality work of English editing.
Data Availability Statement
Data available on request from the authors.
References
- 1. Intergruppo Melanoma Italiano . The effect of COVID‐19 emergency in the management of melanoma in Italy. Dermatol Rep 2021; 13: 8972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Asai Y, Nguyen P, Hanna TP. Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on skin cancer diagnosis: a population‐based study. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0248492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Javor S, Sola S, Chiodi S, Brunasso AMG, Massone C. COVID‐19‐related consequences on melanoma diagnoses from a local Italian registry in Genoa, Italy. Int J Dermatol 2021; 60: e336–e337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hoellwerth M, Kaiser A, Emberger M et al. COVID‐19‐induced reduction in primary melanoma diagnoses: experience from a dermatopathology referral center. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 4059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Gisondi P, Cazzaniga S, Di Leo S et al. Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on melanoma diagnosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021; 35: e714–e715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kurzhals JK, Klee G, Busch H et al. The impact of the Covid‐19 pandemic on quality of life in skin cancer patients. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0255501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Teuscher M, Diehl K, Schaarschmidt ML et al. Effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on care of melanoma patients in Berlin, Germany: the Mela‐COVID survey. Eur J Dermatol 2021; 31: 521–529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Raza SA, Cannon D, Nuttall G, Ali FR. Exploring the implications of the first COVID‐19 lockdown on patients with melanoma: a national survey. Clin Exp Dermatol 2022; 47: 114–116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Cazzaniga S, Castelli E, Di Landro A et al. Mobile teledermatology for melanoma detection: assessment of the validity in the framework of a population‐based skin cancer awareness campaign in northern Italy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2019; 81: 257–260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Pagliarello C, Stanganelli I, Fabrizi G, Feliciani C, Di Nuzzo S. Digital dermoscopy monitoring: is it time to define a quality standard? Acta Derm Venereol 2017; 97: 864–865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data available on request from the authors.