Optimizing Access to Care Through New Technologies: a Randomized Study Evaluating the Impact of Telephone Contact and the Sending by the General Practitioner of Suspicious Lesions Melanoma Photographs Taken With a Smartphone, on the Time Limit to the Consultation With a Dermatologist (OASE Melanome)

April 26, 2019 updated by: Nantes University Hospital

Early detection of melanoma showed an impact on the thickness of the lesions at the time of diagnosis. One challenge is to improve the modalities.

Decrease the rate of non-compliant patients among patients referred to the dermatologist for a suspicious lesion (patients who will never go to the consultation), and reduce the time interval between the first identification of the lesion and the excision allowing the diagnosis are major issues.

Direct contact between the general practitioner (GP) and the dermatologist would probably make it possible to shorten the care pathway of patients with lesions justifying excision.

The objective is to evaluate whether contacting the dermatologist directly by telephone and e-mailing the photograph of a suspicious melanoma lesion can significantly reduce the time required for access to the consultation for the following patients: (a) referred for a suspicious lesion of melanoma by the GP (b) and having a sufficiently suspicious lesion of melanoma so that the dermatologist conclude at the need for excision (true positives).

Expected results: The procedure should shorten the care pathway for patients with melanoma and decrease the proportion of patients who do not consult the dermatologist when they were referred ("non-observing patients").

This should facilitate the identification of thinner lesions. The benefit for the patient is then direct with a survival at 5 years higher.

In public health terms, it is expected a benefit as better optimization of resources. In a situation of shortage of professionals, access to the dermatologist should be optimized by optimizing emergency access for patients who require it.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

270

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Nantes, France
        • University Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Patients:

  • Consulting a general practitioner participating in the study,
  • Having a suspicious cutaneous lesion of melanoma according to the MG,
  • Referred to a dermatologist who agreed to participate in the study,
  • > = 18 years of age, with written informed consent,
  • Affiliated to a social security scheme

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients:

  • Consulting a general practitioner who does not participate in the study,
  • Having no suspect melanoma lesion according to MG,
  • Referred to the dermatologist for symptoms or pathologies unrelated to a suspicion of melanoma
  • Wishing to consult a dermatologist who refused to participate in the study,
  • Refusing the transmission by mail of 2 anonymised photos,
  • <18 years of age, or with no written informed consent.
  • Major under tutelage, under curatorship

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Intervention group

General practitioners will be invited to screen for melanoma as part of their regular consultations.

  • The MG collects relevant clinical information
  • The MG takes 2 photographs of the lesion with his smartphone.
  • The MG sends to the dermatologist by e-mail the 2 photographs of the lesion accompanied by relevant clinical information
  • The MG calls the secretariat of the dermatologist to record the admissibility of the mail, to give the identity and the coordinates of the patient whose photos have just been sent and to obtain an appointment.
  • The dermatologist proposes an appointment to the patient.
Taking photographs of suspicious lesions with his smartphone and sending them to the dermatologist
No Intervention: Control group

General practitioners will be invited to screen for melanoma as part of their regular consultations.

General practitioners and dermatologists continue their practice in the usual way.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Time limit for consultation general practitioner / dermatologist, patients having a sufficiently suspicious lesion of melanoma
Time Frame: 12 months

Time limit for consultation between consultation of the general practitioner and consultation with the dermatologist, for patients:

  1. referred for a suspicious lesion of melanoma by the general practitioner,
  2. and having a sufficiently suspicious lesion of melanoma so that the dermatologist conclude at the need for excision
12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Time limit for consultation general practitioner / dermatologist, patients NOT having a sufficiently suspicious lesion of melanoma
Time Frame: 12 months

Time limit for consultation between consultation of the general practitioner and consultation with the dermatologist, for patients:

  1. referred for a suspicious lesion of melanoma by the general practitioner,
  2. BUT NOT having a sufficiently suspicious lesion of melanoma so that the dermatologist conclude at the need for excision
12 months
"Non-observing" patients between the 2 randomization groups
Time Frame: 12 months
Proportion of "non-observing" patients between the 2 randomization groups. A non-observing patient is a patient who has not consulted a dermatologist within 12 months following the prescription of his or her GP.
12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

May 23, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 28, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

November 28, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 28, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 28, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

May 2, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 29, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 26, 2019

Last Verified

April 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • RC16_0033

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Patients at Risk for Melanoma

Search Similar Trials