Poster Presentation 2025 Joint Meeting of the COSA ASM and IPOS Congress

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures and validation data used in melanoma research and routine practice (125713)

Jake R Thompson 1 2 , Tayla B McCutcheon 1 2 , Linda K Martin 1 3 , Robyn PM Saw 1 2 4 , Iris Bartula 2 , Frances Boyle 1 2 5
  1. Melanoma Institute Australia, Wollstonecraft, NSW, Australia
  2. The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  3. University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  5. Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in melanoma research and to guide clinical practice; however, the validation of these PROMs for use in melanoma populations is unknown.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review to identify PROMs and associated melanoma-specific validation data that have been used in melanoma research and clinical practice.

Methodology: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Index Medicus, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), and PsychINFO in January 2025, including any studies that used a PROM to evaluate melanoma patient outcomes published from January 1st, 2010, onward, to identify instruments relevant to the current era of melanoma diagnosis and treatment.

Findings: Of 30,895 abstracts screened, 136 articles detailing 124 studies were included in this review. Study designs were cross-sectional (n=52, 41%), randomised controlled trials (n=31, 25%), longitudinal (n=23, 19%), pre-post (n=8, 6%), cohort (n=6, 5%), and 1 (1%) retrospective analysis, phase IV trial, protocol, and quasi-experimental trial, respectively. Sixty-one (49%) studies included a melanoma treatment, with immunotherapy (n=24, 39%) being the most common, followed by surgery (n=7, 11%), and chemotherapy (n=7, 11%). These 124 studies utilised 110 unique PROMs, with patient emotional/psychological wellbeing (n=28, 25%), health-related quality of life (n=21, 19%), and patient self-functioning/efficacy/coping strategies (n=20, 18%) being the most common outcome categories. Only 17 (15%) PROMs had melanoma-specific validation data available, of which only the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Melanoma questionnaire had data available for all psychometric variables of interest.

Conclusions: PROMs utilised in melanoma research and clinical practice are heterogenous, with nearly as many unique instruments identified as studies that utilised them. Few instruments had melanoma-specific validation data available. Clinicians and researchers should be cautious when utilising PROMs not validated in melanoma, as these instruments may not perform as expected or be relevant to the experiences of individuals diagnosed with melanoma.