IARC 60th Anniversary - 19-21 May 2026
Session : 20/05/26 - Posters
Real-world evaluation of the use of melanoma risk prediction tools by clinicians, patients and community in Australia: a mixed methods study
REYES-MARCELINO G. 1,2, SALAM R. 1, ESPINOZA D. 3, WATTS C. 1,2, STEINBERG J. 1, KANG Y. 7, MARTIN L. 1,2,4,5, GUITERA P. 2,6,7, LO S. 2,7,8, VAREY A. 2,7,9, SCOLYER R. 2,7,8,10, LONG G. 2,7,8,11, SMIT A. 1,2, CUST A. 1,2
1 The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, and Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia; 2 Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 3 NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 4 Sydney Children’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 5 Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 6 Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 7 Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 8 Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 9 Department of Surgical Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 10 Department of Tissue Oncology and Diagnostic Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, Australia; 11 Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital and Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Background
Melanoma risk prediction tools have been developed to estimate individuals’ risk of developing melanoma, but little is known about how clinicians, patients, or the community use them in practice. Validated melanoma risk tools are available online and may help tailor prevention and early detection, although their incorporation into clinical guidelines is still emerging. A better understanding of their practical application and impact on clinical care is needed to assess their acceptability and feasibility in routine practice and to inform recommendations for use.
Objectives
We assessed the use, usability and acceptability of two online melanoma risk prediction tools (hosted on a website by Melanoma Institute Australia) that estimate the risk of a first or subsequent primary melanoma, among clinicians, patients and the community.
Methods
A mixed-methods design was used, combining questionnaire and semi-structured interview data. Clinicians, patients and the community in Australia were recruited when using the risk tool, via a pop-up box on the risk tool website. Quantitative and qualitative results were interpreted together, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.
Results
Patients and community participants: A total of 268 members of the community or patients (with a previous melanoma) gave consent and completed the online questionnaire, and 30 were subsequently interviewed. Most questionnaire participants were women (72%), aged ≥ 50 years (55%); 26% had a previous melanoma diagnosis and 84% reported a previous clinical skin check. Most participants used the risk tool at home (85%), and 5% as part of a consultation with a doctor. The most common reason for use was “to understand my risk of getting a melanoma” (76%). Most participants (88%) found the melanoma risk tool helpful and 37% reported that they would subsequently change their prevention or skin check behaviours. Qualitative feedback suggested the tools reinforced existing melanoma prevention practices. Some were uncertain about the accuracy of risk estimates, particularly when the risk estimate was lower than expected.
Clinicians: 58 clinicians completed the questionnaire, of which 13 also conducted an interview. Most participants were general practitioners (83%). Risk tools were primarily used during consultations (82%) to estimate melanoma risk or guide frequency of skin checks. Most clinicians trusted the risk estimates (88%) and valued the tools for patient education and risk communication, and 83% indicated that the risk tool assisted with shared decision-making. Some clinicians applied the tools routinely while others reserved them for patients they deemed at high-risk. The tools influenced clinical decision-making, particularly for tailoring skin check frequency (72%), education on skin self-examination (48%), and discussion of prevention advice (41%). One third (33%) stated that the risk tools influenced their use of skin imaging technologies. Some were unsure how to interpret lifetime risk percentages or relate them to prevention and skin check frequency.
Conclusions
Clinicians, patients and community members generally found the melanoma risk prediction tools acceptable, user friendly and useful for supporting melanoma prevention and early detection, although use differed among clinicians and varied depending on patient factors.