Australia has one of the highest skin cancer rates globally, with nearly 19,000 Australians diagnosed with invasive melanoma – the most lethal type of skin cancer – each year.

While advanced melanoma can be fatal, it is highly treatable when detected early.

But Australian clinical practice guidelines and health authorities do not recommend screening for melanoma in the general population.

Given our reputation as the skin cancer capital of the world, why isn’t there a national screening program? Australia currently screens for breast, cervical and bowel cancer and will begin lung cancer screening in 2025.

It turns out the question of whether to screen everyone for melanoma and other skin cancers is complex. Here’s why.

The current approach

On top of the 19,000 invasive melanoma diagnoses each year, around 28,000 people are diagnosed with in-situ melanoma.

In-situ melanoma refers to a very early stage melanoma where the cancerous cells are confined to the outer layer of the skin (the epidermis).

Instead of a blanket screening program, Australia promotes skin protection, skin awareness and regular skin checks (at least annually) for those at high risk.

About one in three Australian adults have had a clinical skin check within the past year.

Why not just do skin checks for everyone?

The goal of screening is to find disease early, before symptoms appear, which helps save lives and reduce morbidity.

But there are a couple of reasons a national screening program is not yet in place.

We need to ask:

1. Does it save lives?

Many researchers would argue this is the goal of universal screening. But while universal skin cancer screening would likely lead to more melanoma diagnoses, this might not necessarily save lives. It could result in indolent (slow-growing) cancers being diagnosed that might have never caused harm. This is known as “overdiagnosis”.

Screening will pick up some cancers people could have safely lived with, if they didn’t know about them. The difficulty is in recognising which cancers are slow-growing and can be safely left alone.

Receiving a diagnosis causes stress and is more likely to lead to additional medical procedures (such as surgeries), which carry their own risks.

2. Is it value for money?

Implementing a nationwide screening program involves significant investment and resources. Its value to the health system would need to be calculated, to ensure this is the best use of resources.

Narrower targets for better results

Instead of screening everyone, targeting high-risk groups has shown better results. This focuses efforts where they’re needed most. Risk factors for skin cancer include fair skin, red hair, a history of sunburns, many moles and/or a family history.

Research has shown the public would be mostly accepting of a risk-tailored approach to screening for melanoma.

There are moves underway to establish a national targeted skin cancer screening program in Australia, with the government recently pledging $10.3 million to help tackle “the most common cancer in our sunburnt country, skin cancer” by focusing on those at greater risk.

Currently, Australian clinical practice guidelines recommend doctors properly evaluate all patients for their future risk of melanoma.

Looking with new technological eyes

Technological advances are improving the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis and risk assessment.

For example, researchers are investigating 3D total body skin imaging to monitor changes to spots and moles over time.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can analyse images of skin lesions, and support doctors’ decision making.

Genetic testing can now identify risk markers for more personalised screening.

And telehealth has made remote consultations possible, increasing access to specialists, particularly in rural areas.

Check yourself – 4 things to look for

Skin cancer can affect all skin types, so it’s a good idea to become familiar with your own skin. The Skin Cancer College Australasia has introduced a guide called SCAN your skin, which tells people to look for skin spots or areas that are:

1. sore (scaly, itchy, bleeding, tender) and don’t heal within six weeks

2. changing in size, shape, colour or texture

3. abnormal for you and look different or feel different, or stand out when compared to your other spots and moles

4. new and have appeared on your skin recently. Any new moles or spots should be checked, especially if you are over 40.

If something seems different, make an appointment with your doctor.

You can self-assess your melanoma risk online via the Melanoma Institute Australia or QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.

H. Peter Soyer, Professor of Dermatology, The University of Queensland; Anne Cust, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, The Daffodil Centre and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney; Caitlin Horsham, Research Manager, The University of Queensland, and Monika Janda, Professor in Behavioural Science, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Corporations have used feminist language to promote their products for decades. In the 1980s, companies co-opted messaging about female autonomy to encourage women’s consumption of unhealthy commodities, such as tobacco and alcohol.

Today, feminist narratives around empowerment and women’s rights are being co-opted to market interventions that are not backed by evidence across many areas of women’s health. This includes by commercial companies, industry, mass media and well-intentioned advocacy groups.

Some of these health technologies, tests and treatments are useful in certain situations and can be very beneficial to some women.

However, promoting them to a large group of asymptomatic healthy women that are unlikely to benefit, or without being transparent about the limitations, runs the risk of causing more harm than good. This includes inappropriate medicalisation, overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

In our analysis published today in the BMJ, we examine this phenomenon in two current examples: the anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test and breast density notification.

The AMH test

The AMH test is a blood test associated with the number of eggs in a woman’s ovaries and is sometimes referred to as the “egg timer” test.

Although often used in fertility treatment, the AMH test cannot reliably predict the likelihood of pregnancy, timing to pregnancy or specific age of menopause. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists therefore strongly discourages testing for women not seeking fertility treatment.

Despite this, several fertility clinics and online companies market the AMH test to women not even trying to get pregnant. Some use feminist rhetoric promising empowerment, selling the test as a way to gain personalised insights into your fertility. For example, “you deserve to know your reproductive potential”, “be proactive about your fertility” and “knowing your numbers will empower you to make the best decisions when family planning”.

The use of feminist marketing makes these companies appear socially progressive and champions of female health. But they are selling a test that has no proven benefit outside of IVF and cannot inform women about their current or future fertility.

Our recent study found around 30% of women having an AMH test in Australia may be having it for these reasons.

Misleading women to believe that the test can reliably predict fertility can create a false sense of security about delaying pregnancy. It can also create unnecessary anxiety, pressure to freeze eggs, conceive earlier than desired, or start fertility treatment when it may not be needed.

While some companies mention the test’s limitations if you read on, they are glossed over and contradicted by the calls to be proactive and messages of empowerment.

Breast density notification

Breast density is one of several independent risk factors for breast cancer. It’s also harder to see cancer on a mammogram image of breasts with high amounts of dense tissue than breasts with a greater proportion of fatty tissue.

While estimates vary, approximately 25–50% of women in the breast screening population have dense breasts.

Stemming from valid concerns about the increased risk of cancer, advocacy efforts have used feminist language around women’s right to know such as “women need to know the truth” and “women can handle the truth” to argue for widespread breast density notification.

However, this simplistic messaging overlooks that this is a complex issue and that more data is still needed on whether the benefits of notifying and providing additional screening or tests to women with dense breasts outweigh the harms.

Additional tests (ultrasound or MRI) are now being recommended for women with dense breasts as they have the ability to detect more cancer. Yet, there is no or little mention of the lack of robust evidence showing that it prevents breast cancer deaths. These extra tests also have out-of-pocket costs and high rates of false-positive results.

Large international advocacy groups are also sponsored by companies that will financially benefit from women being notified.

While stronger patient autonomy is vital, campaigning for breast density notification without stating the limitations or unclear evidence of benefit may go against the empowerment being sought.

Ensuring feminism isn’t hijacked

Increased awareness and advocacy in women’s health are key to overcoming sex inequalities in health care.

But we need to ensure the goals of feminist health advocacy aren’t undermined through commercially driven use of feminist language pushing care that isn’t based on evidence. This includes more transparency about the risks and uncertainties of health technologies, tests and treatments and greater scrutiny of conflicts of interests.

Health professionals and governments must also ensure that easily understood, balanced information based on high quality scientific evidence is available. This will enable women to make more informed decisions about their health.

Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney and Tessa Copp, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.