Online training on skin cancer diagnosis in rheumatologists: results from a nationwide randomized web-based survey.
Fiche publication
Date publication
janvier 2015
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr AUBIN François
Tous les auteurs :
Viguier M, Rist S, Aubin F, Leccia MT, Richard MA, Esposito-Farese M, Gaudin P, Pham T, Richette P, Wendling D, Sibilia J, Tubach F
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
Patients with inflammatory rheumatisms, such as rheumatoid arthritis, are more prone to develop skin cancers than the general population, with an additional increased incidence when receiving TNF blockers. There is therefore a need that physicians treating patients affected with inflammatory rheumatisms with TNF blockers recognize malignant skin lesions, requiring an urgent referral to the dermatologist and a potential withdrawal or modification of the immunomodulatory treatment. We aimed to demonstrate that an online training dedicated to skin tumors increase the abilities of rheumatologists to discriminate skin cancers from benign skin tumors. A nationwide randomized web-based survey involving 141 French rheumatologists was conducted. The baseline evaluation included short cases with skin lesion pictures and multiple choice questions assessing basic knowledge on skin cancers. For each case, rheumatologists had to indicate the nature of skin lesion (benign; premalignant/malignant), their level of confidence in this diagnosis (10-points Likert scale), and the precise dermatological diagnosis among 5 propositions. Different scores were established. After randomization, only one group had access to the online formation consisting in 4 e-learning modules on skin tumors, of 15 minutes each (online training group). After reevaluation, the trained and the non-trained group (control group) were compared. The primary end-point was the number of adequate diagnoses of the nature of the skin lesions. The mean number of adequate diagnosis for the benign versus premalignant/malignant nature of the lesions was higher in the online training group (13.4 vs. 11.2 points; p value
Référence
PLoS One. 2015 May 21;10(5):e0127564