Conventional versus reduced-frequency follow-up in early-stage melanoma survivors : a systematic review with meta-analysis

To date, there have been multiple studies and clinical guidelines or recommendations for complex management of melanoma patients. The most controversial subjects included the frequency of follow-up. This study provides a coherent and comprehensive comparison of conventional vs. reduced-frequency follow-up strategies for early-stage melanoma patients. The value of our study consists in the precise analysis of a large collection of articles and the selection of the most valuable works in relation to the topic according to rigorous criteria, which allowed for a thorough study of the topic. The search strategy was implemented using multiple databases. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial or cohort studies that compared the outcomes of a conventional follow-up schedule versus a reduced-frequency follow-up schedule for patients diagnosed with melanoma. In this study, authors analyzed recurrence and 3-year survival. Meta-analysis of outcomes presented by Deckers et al. and Moncrieff et. al. did not reveal a significant difference favoring one of the groups (OR 1.14; 95%CI: 0.65–2.00; p = 0.64). The meta-analysis of 3-year overall survival included two studies. The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in favor of the conventional follow-up group. (OR 1.10; 95%CI: 0.57–2.11; p = 0.79). Our meta-analysis shows that there is no advantage in a conventional follow-up regimen over a reduced-frequency regimen in early-stage melanoma patients.