Is more screening for skin cancer better or worse for people? According to the articles linked and excerpted below, having primary care physicians (PCP) do the screening results in more screening rates yet the diagnoses are often “thin, in situ” melanomas.
Click the image below to enlarge this skin cancer mind-map:
Here are some tips:
I am a cancer survivor and cancer coach (different cancer). My conventional therapies (radiation and a bone marrow transplant) increased my risk of both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers. Not to mention many sunburns as a kid at the beach. I have six of the “risks” listed above.
I take my increased risks seriously. Evidence-based nutrition, supplementation, and lifestyle therapies can not only reduce my risks but repair some of the damage already done to my skin.
To learn more about other evidence-based therapies that can help prevent the development of non-melanoma skin cancer or relapse, please watch the short video below:
Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer at a Glance-
Melanoma at a glance-
Have you been diagnosed with skin cancer, either SCC, BCC or melanoma?
If you have any questions, scroll down the page, post a question or comment and I will reply to you ASAP.
” Primary care physician–based screening may increase screening rates for melanoma among men and older individuals, according to a speaker at HemOnc Today Melanoma and Cutaneous Malignancies…
Screening also may improve the detection of thin, in situ and invasive melanomas…
The pros of melanoma screening are:
however, cons include:
“A US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded after careful review that current evidence is insufficient to adequately determine the benefit versus harm of having clinicians conduct routine visual skin cancer screenings…
The recommendation does not apply to patients who have had skin cancer in the past, those at high risk, or those who observe worrisome skin changes…
However, they noted that evidence that could aid in assessing the overall benefit of routine skin cancer screening with clinical visual skin examinations was limited, and that evidence gleaned from intensive studies such as the Skin Cancer Research to Provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Germany that involved major methodological means, also proved insufficient over time…
Conversely, the task force observed that potential for harm exists such as unnecessary biopsies that could result in cosmetic damage to patients. Other harms include functional side effects, over diagnosis, and over treatment for lesions that do not become cancer and skin cancers that would not have harmed the patient or resulted in death…”