Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries
The goal of our study was to determine current melanoma reporting methods available to dermatologists and dermatopathologists and quantify changes in reporting methods from 2012 to 2014. A cross-sectional study design was utilized consisting of website perusal of reporting procedures, followed up by...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Skin Cancer |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/904393 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832565415653408768 |
|---|---|
| author | Kehinde O. Raji Lauren Payne Suephy C. Chen |
| author_facet | Kehinde O. Raji Lauren Payne Suephy C. Chen |
| author_sort | Kehinde O. Raji |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The goal of our study was to determine current melanoma reporting methods available to dermatologists and dermatopathologists and quantify changes in reporting methods from 2012 to 2014. A cross-sectional study design was utilized consisting of website perusal of reporting procedures, followed up by telephone and email inquiry of reporting methods from every state cancer registry. This study was conducted over a six-month period from February to August 2014. A previous similar survey was conducted in 2012 over the same time frame and results were compared. Kansas state cancer registry provided no data. As of August 2014, 96% of 49 state cancer registries had electronic methods available to all designated reporters. Seven (14%) states required an electronic-only method of reporting melanoma cases. Eighty-six percent allowed hard copy pathology report submission. Compared to the 2012 survey, 2 additional states were found to have initiated electronic reporting methods by 2014. In conclusion, a variety of methods exist for reporting diagnosed melanoma cases. Although most state cancer registries were equipped for electronic transmission of cases for mandated reporters, a number of states were ill-equipped for electronic submission from outpatient dermatologists. There was a general trend towards electronic versus nonelectronic reporting from 2012 to 2014. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fdd377a323b3482e80c4a63b6c153127 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-2905 2090-2913 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Skin Cancer |
| spelling | doaj-art-fdd377a323b3482e80c4a63b6c1531272025-02-03T01:07:58ZengWileyJournal of Skin Cancer2090-29052090-29132015-01-01201510.1155/2015/904393904393Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer RegistriesKehinde O. Raji0Lauren Payne1Suephy C. Chen2Department of Internal Medicine, Scripps Clinic/Scripps Green Hospital, 10666 N. Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USADepartment of Dermatology, Howard University, 2041 Georgia Avenue NW, Suite 2107, Washington, DC 20060, USADivision of Dermatology, Atlanta VAMC, 1670 Clairmont Road, Decatur, GA 30033, USAThe goal of our study was to determine current melanoma reporting methods available to dermatologists and dermatopathologists and quantify changes in reporting methods from 2012 to 2014. A cross-sectional study design was utilized consisting of website perusal of reporting procedures, followed up by telephone and email inquiry of reporting methods from every state cancer registry. This study was conducted over a six-month period from February to August 2014. A previous similar survey was conducted in 2012 over the same time frame and results were compared. Kansas state cancer registry provided no data. As of August 2014, 96% of 49 state cancer registries had electronic methods available to all designated reporters. Seven (14%) states required an electronic-only method of reporting melanoma cases. Eighty-six percent allowed hard copy pathology report submission. Compared to the 2012 survey, 2 additional states were found to have initiated electronic reporting methods by 2014. In conclusion, a variety of methods exist for reporting diagnosed melanoma cases. Although most state cancer registries were equipped for electronic transmission of cases for mandated reporters, a number of states were ill-equipped for electronic submission from outpatient dermatologists. There was a general trend towards electronic versus nonelectronic reporting from 2012 to 2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/904393 |
| spellingShingle | Kehinde O. Raji Lauren Payne Suephy C. Chen Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries Journal of Skin Cancer |
| title | Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries |
| title_full | Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries |
| title_fullStr | Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries |
| title_short | Reporting Melanoma: A Nationwide Surveillance of State Cancer Registries |
| title_sort | reporting melanoma a nationwide surveillance of state cancer registries |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/904393 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kehindeoraji reportingmelanomaanationwidesurveillanceofstatecancerregistries AT laurenpayne reportingmelanomaanationwidesurveillanceofstatecancerregistries AT suephycchen reportingmelanomaanationwidesurveillanceofstatecancerregistries |