3. Early detection of keratinocyte cancers

From Clinical Guidelines Wiki
Clinical practice guidelines for keratinocyte cancer > 3. Early detection of keratinocyte cancers


‘Early detection’ is a broad term that covers a number of discrete activities including:

  • screening – the systematic, population-wide evaluation of asymptomatic patients to identify those with (or likely to have) skin cancer
  • surveillance – the ongoing follow-up of people after a previous diagnosis of keratinocyte cancer (KC) or those at pre-determined high risk of skin cancer (e.g. based on history or clinical phenotype)
  • case-finding – opportunistic examination of patients who have presented for clinical care
  • skin self-examination.

Back to top


Keratinocyte cancer (KC) comprising basal cell cancer (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), causes enormous morbidity and small but important mortality in Australia.[1] Early detection is one arm of the overall skin cancer control strategy (along with primary prevention and optimal treatment) intended to reduce the burden of these cancers. Unresolved questions remain about the balance of harms and benefits arising from early detection, and hence the cost-effectiveness of this strategy when considered for the whole population.

While much has been written about this subject, there are few data from high-quality studies that have formally assessed the benefits and risks of various early detection strategies.[2][3][4][5][6]

Early detection of KCs through clinical inspection of the skin offers the potential to reduce morbidity. However, it is unlikely that a mortality benefit would ever be observed at the population level, because the age of onset is typically late and international data suggest that relative survival rates for patients with BCC (approximately 100%) and cSCC (approximately 95%) are very high under existing models of care[2] No Australian data are available to estimate relative survival for BCC or cSCC.

In the absence of data for assessing survival benefit, evidence of benefit must be assessed using other endpoints, including morbidity, quality of life, cosmesis and cost.

Given the uniquely high incidence and burden of KCs in Australia, the high levels of public awareness, and the fact that most such cancers are treated in primary care settings, these guidelines have sought evidence primarily from studies conducted in Australia, supplemented with findings from other populations where relevant.

A particular challenge when reviewing the literature is that all studies exploring the benefits and hazards of early detection of skin cancer have been designed with melanoma as the primary endpoint. Data on the incidence and burden of KCs following early detection activities has been captured as a secondary endpoint, if at all. In Australia, it is impossible to formally evaluate early detection programs for KCs independently of early detection for melanomas for several reasons:

  • The principal mode of detection is the same (i.e. visual inspection of the skin surface, with or without dermoscopy or other technological aids).
  • The populations of patients at risk of melanoma overlap with those at risk of KCs.
  • All suspicious lesions arising from a clinical examination of the skin require a clinical decision to excise or not.

Back to top

Overview of evidence (non-systematic literature review)

What are the benefits versus hazards of early detection?

The principal intended benefit of early detection of KCs is to diagnose and excise the primary tumour when it is small in size, and before extension into the deeper dermis and subcutis or metastasis occur. Early excision restores skin health and should reduce the extent of surgical intervention or obviate it, thereby reducing patient discomfort and adverse events, achieving better cosmetic results, and lowering costs. While lower mortality is a theoretical benefit of early detection, in practice mortality rates from keratinocyte cancer are so low that improvements through early detection are not considered feasible (with the possible exception of patients undergoing solid organ transplants).

The principal hazard of early detection is overtreatment (i.e. medical or surgical intervention for lesions that are not malignant, or would never have led to morbidity or mortality had they been left untreated). The sequelae of overtreatment include unnecessary interventions, increased likelihood of adverse events and increased costs to patients and society.[7]

A recent systematic review by the US Preventive Services Taskforce examined the evidence for the effect of visual skin cancer screening in the general population on morbidity and mortality (specific and all-cause).[8] That review found no trials that reported on mortality but did report one ecologic study judged to be of ‘fair quality’ (the German SCREEN Study).[9] This skin cancer screening study reported that 4.4% of screened patients (n=360,288) underwent at least one excision following a visual inspection of the skin, of whom 18.2% had a confirmed malignant diagnosis and 74.3% had confirmed benign diagnoses. Thus, the majority of skin excisions in that screened population were for benign lesions. However, these findings cannot be generalised to the Australian population given the far lower incidence of KCs in Germany than Australia and the differences in training and service provision of clinicians.

Is early detection of keratinocyte cancer accurate?

A key determinant of the performance of early detection is the diagnostic accuracy of the examining clinician. Accuracy is a function of sensitivity (the proportion of histopathologically confirmed skin cancers among those diagnosed clinically as ‘skin cancer’) and specificity (the proportion of truly benign lesions among all those lesions diagnosed clinically as ‘benign’). Globally, data informing these parameters from well-designed studies are scarce.

(Note: the definitions of sensitivity and specificity given above are pragmatic, and based on the necessity to establish the true diagnosis using the gold-standard test of histopathological examination of excised lesions. This restriction means that one can never know the ‘true’ sensitivity or specificity, since the size of the pools of ‘population true negative lesions’ and ‘population false negative lesions' are unknown).

A large Queensland study compared the diagnostic performance of mainstream general practitioners (GPs) with those working in primary care skin cancer clinics.[10] Of the lesions excised, about 55% were KCs; the remainder were actinic keratoses (10%), benign naevi (11%), melanomas (1.5%) and other diagnoses. Sensitivity for diagnosing KCs in both groups was very high (skin cancer clinic doctors 0.94 versus GPs 0.92), but specificity was lower (skin cancer doctors 0.71 versus GPs 0.62). Thus when taken together, the proportion of lesions that were diagnosed clinically as KCs and which were histopathologically confirmed as such (the positive predictive value) was 0.72 for skin cancer doctors and 0.71 for GPs. On average, the primary care doctors in both settings excised about two lesions for each confirmed malignancy.

Back to top

Is early detection of keratinocyte cancer effective?

In its recent comprehensive review of the evidence, the US Preventive Services Task Force acknowledged the importance of the potential benefits of early detection of skin cancer, but could not determine whether there is an incremental benefit to detecting KC early through a program of regular clinical examination as compared with patient self-identification followed by clinical evaluation.[11] The task force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer.

Only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) with KC as the primary endpoint has tested the effectiveness of patient-led early detection activities in Australia,[12][13][14] although other studies have explored this issue using a variety of study designs. No studies have assessed mortality as an endpoint, and nor are they ever likely to owing to the very low case-fatality rate for KCs in the general population.

The RCT by Janda et al[13][14] tested the effectiveness of a video intervention, compared with control (printed materials), to encourage skin self-examination in 930 Queensland men aged over 50 years. Both the video and printed materials were effective in increasing skin self-examination behaviours in the target group, with around 50% of men in both groups reporting having performed skin self-examination in the 6-month interval between recruitment and follow-up, compared with 10% at baseline.[14] Rates of nonsurgical management of suspicious skin lesions during follow-up were similar in both groups, but the intervention group underwent significantly more excisions or biopsies than the control group (41% versus 27%) and had significantly more skin cancers detected (60% versus 40%, p=0.03).[12] The corollary is that both groups had large numbers of non-malignant lesions excised.

Is early detection cost-effective?

No studies have examined cost-effectiveness of early detection solely for BCC and SCC endpoints. A health economic analysis using data arising from the Australian early detection intervention trial in men over 50 years found that early detection was more expensive than usual care (AUD$5,298 versus $4,684), and was also inferior in terms of health utility measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) where 1 QALY equals 1 year lived in perfect health (mean QALY 7.53 versus 7.77).[15] In further analyses, it was found that the main driver of costs was the cost of treating benign lesions, cSCCs and BCCs detected during clinical follow-up, with essentially no impact on mortality and an adverse effect on QALYs.

Back to top

Are there high-risk groups who benefit from surveillance?

Organ transplant recipients (OTRs) have rates of cSCC up to 100 times higher than the general population and malignancy is the leading cause of death for this patient group.[16] There is no high-quality evidence that early detection programs for skin cancer lead to measurable benefits for OTRs, although there is broad international consensus across agencies and professional societies to recommend this practice. A recent systematic review identified 13 clinical practice guidelines for patients following transplantation of one or more solid organs.[17] Of these, 10 produced guidelines on screening for skin or lip cancer, and nine recommended annual examinations either by GPs (four guidelines) or by specialist (five guidelines). The single Australian guideline identified in the review was for the care of patients following kidney transplantation.[18] The Australian guideline, which was based on the international kidney diseases working group, suggests that 'a health care specialist with expertise in skin cancer diagnosis examine the skin and lips of kidney transplant recipients annually, especially those with previous history of skin cancers'. The guidelines assigned a D grading (very low quality of evidence) to this recommendation.

Recent Australian research shows that skin cancer follow-up for OTRs in Queensland was highly variable and that the incidence of SCC was extremely high.[19] Several recent articles also indicate the complexity of managing skin cancers and monitoring skin cancer risk in OTRs.[20]

Back to top

Can the risk of keratinocyte cancer be predicted reliably?

Prediction algorithms have been developed which estimate a person’s future risk of KC with high discriminatory accuracy.[21] Using such tools, people at high risk can be identified with high discrimination (area under the ROC curve 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.81). The strongest factors contributing to future risk include past history of excision of KC, past history of ablation or destruction of an actinic skin lesion, and age. As yet, there are no data to determine whether using such tools improves outcomes for patients. However, there is widespread clinical support for regular skin examinations for people with a prior history of treatment for actinic lesions (i.e. surveillance).

A prediction algorithm tool[21] can be accessed here: QSkin keratinocyte cancer risk predictor

Practice Point

Practice pointQuestion mark transparent.png

PP 3.1.1. Patients at very high risk of keratinocyte cancers (e.g. organ transplant recipients) should be monitored in specialist clinics at least annually.

Key point(s)
  • People in the general population who are at high risk for developing keratinocyte cancers should be identified using risk prediction tools, and should be offered regular skin examinations to minimise future morbidity.
  • To encourage patients to seek medical attention for any suspicious skin lesions without delay, clinicians should consider whether patients’ out-of-pocket healthcare costs are a barrier to assessment and treatment and consider strategies for minimising these, especially for those returning for multiple skin cancer treatments.

Back to top

Health system implications

Clinical practice

There is insufficient evidence to recommend systematic activities for early detection of KCs, such as screening of the general population.

Implementation of the practice points concerning high-risk groups would not change current practice, which does not involve screening for KCs in the asymptomatic population.


Surveillance activities for patients at high to very high risk of KC (e.g. organ transplant recipients and people with prior history of skin cancer) will require skilled clinicians with training and experience in the diagnosis and management of benign and malignant skin lesions.

Surveillance of patients at high risk of KC will occur predominantly in primary care settings. Patients at very-high risk of KC, particularly organ transplant recipients, will mostly be managed by specialists.

Barriers to implementation

For patients at high or very high risk of KC, access to services staffed by appropriately skilled clinicians is a barrier to recommended surveillance in some regions.

Back to top


Unresolved issues

Overall mortality from KCs is very low, and it is not known whether mortality can be reduced further by early detection.[1] Similarly, at the population level, it is an open question whether early detection delivers morbidity benefits that outweigh the potential harms of over-diagnosis and over-treatment.

The advent of new technologies (e.g. reflectance confocal microscopy and optical coherence tomography for suspicious individual lesions; three-dimensional total body imaging, total body dermoscopy, and integrated genetic scores) which might deliver near-perfect positive predictive values for KCs and hence lessen the harms of over-treatment, could change the risk–benefit equation markedly.[22]

Studies currently underway

A large prospective study in Queensland, the QSkin Study,[23] has enrolled more than 45,000 participants and is following them through record-linkage to health registers and administrative databases, specifically monitoring skin cancer outcomes. That study is incorporating genetic risk prediction algorithms and health economics analyses as part of the research plan and aims to address some of the unresolved questions above.

The Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study[24] (also based in Queensland) is tracking skin cancer incidence among different groups of organ transplant recipients. STAR is also monitoring health service utilisation of study participants.

Future research priorities

A high priority for research is to determine whether targeted detection activities among people at high risk of KC is effective or efficient. Stratification tools, incorporating phenotypic, genetic and clinical data, should be tested as a method for triaging those at highest risk. In particular, the stratification of patients into ‘high’ and ‘very-high’ risk remains to be defined.

New diagnostic technologies are in the process of being developed and validated in clinical trials to determine their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for early detection.[25][26]

Back to top


  1. 1.0 1.1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. no. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW; 2017.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Breitbart EW, Choudhury K, Anders MP, Volkmer B, Greinert R, Katalinic A, et al. Benefits and risks of skin cancer screening. Oncol Res Treat 2014;37 Suppl 3:38-47 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25195831.
  3. Hoorens I, Vossaert K, Ongenae K, Brochez L. Is early detection of basal cell carcinoma worthwhile? Systematic review based on the WHO criteria for screening. Br J Dermatol 2016 Jun;174(6):1258-65 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26872563.
  4. Lallas A, Argenziano G, Zendri E, Moscarella E, Longo C, Grenzi L, et al. Update on non-melanoma skin cancer and the value of dermoscopy in its diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2013 May;13(5):541-58 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23617346.
  5. Swetter SM, Chang J, Shaub AR, Weinstock MA, Lewis ET, Asch SM. Primary Care-Based Skin Cancer Screening in a Veterans Affairs Health Care System. JAMA Dermatol 2017 Aug 1;153(8):797-801 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28593242.
  6. Choudhury K, Volkmer B, Greinert R, Christophers E, Breitbart EW. Effectiveness of skin cancer screening programmes. Br J Dermatol 2012 Aug;167 Suppl 2:94-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22881593.
  7. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM Jr, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 2013 Aug 28;310(8):797-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896967.
  8. Wernli KJ, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, Nguyen M, Pocobelli G, Blasi PR. Screening for Skin Cancer in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016 Jul 26;316(4):436-47 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27458949.
  9. Waldmann A, Nolte S, Geller AC, Katalinic A, Weinstock MA, Volkmer B, et al. Frequency of excisions and yields of malignant skin tumors in a population-based screening intervention of 360,288 whole-body examinations. Arch Dermatol 2012 Aug;148(8):903-10 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22911184.
  10. Youl PH, Baade PD, Janda M, Del Mar CB, Whiteman DC, Aitken JF. Diagnosing skin cancer in primary care: how do mainstream general practitioners compare with primary care skin cancer clinic doctors? Med J Aust 2007 Aug 20;187(4):215-20 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708723.
  11. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Davidson KW, Ebell M, Epling JW Jr, et al. Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2016 Jul 26;316(4):429-35 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27458948.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Janda M, Youl P, Neale R, Aitken J, Whiteman D, Gordon L, et al. Clinical skin examination outcomes after a video-based behavioral intervention: analysis from a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol 2014 Apr;150(4):372-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24553807.
  13. 13.0 13.1 Janda M, Baade PD, Youl PH, Aitken JF, Whiteman DC, Gordon L, et al. The skin awareness study: promoting thorough skin self-examination for skin cancer among men 50 years or older. Contemp Clin Trials 2010 Jan;31(1):119-30 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19900577.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 Janda M, Neale RE, Youl P, Whiteman DC, Gordon L, Baade PD. Impact of a video-based intervention to improve the prevalence of skin self-examination in men 50 years or older: the randomized skin awareness trial. Arch Dermatol 2011 Jul;147(7):799-806 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422325.
  15. Gordon LG, Brynes J, Baade PD, Neale RE, Whiteman DC, Youl PH, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Skin Awareness Intervention for Early Detection of Skin Cancer Targeting Men Older Than 50 Years. Value Health 2017 Apr;20(4):593-601 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28408001.
  16. Cheng JY, Li FY, Ko CJ, Colegio OR. Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Compared With Immunocompetent Patients. JAMA Dermatol 2018 Jan 1;154(1):60-66 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29167858.
  17. Acuna SA, Huang JW, Scott AL, Micic S, Daly C, Brezden-Masley C, et al. Cancer Screening Recommendations for Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Am J Transplant 2017 Jan;17(1):103-114 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27575845.
  18. Chadban SJ, Barraclough KA, Campbell SB, Clark CJ, Coates PT, Cohney SJ, et al. KHA-CARI guideline: KHA-CARI adaptation of the KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients. Nephrology (Carlton) 2012 Mar;17(3):204-14 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22212251.
  19. Plasmeijer EI, Jiyad Z, Way M, Marquart L, Miura K, Campbell S, et al. Extreme Incidence of Skin Cancer in Kidney and Liver Transplant Recipients Living with High Sun Exposure. Acta Derm Venereol 2019 Jun 14 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31197384.
  20. Blomberg M, He SY, Harwood C, Arron ST, Demehri S, Green A, et al. Research gaps in the management and prevention of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in organ transplant recipients. Br J Dermatol 2017 Nov;177(5):1225-1233 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086412.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Whiteman DC, Thompson BS, Thrift AP, Hughes MC, Muranushi C, Neale RE, et al. A Model to Predict the Risk of Keratinocyte Carcinomas. J Invest Dermatol 2016 Jun;136(6):1247-54 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26908057.
  22. Rayner JE, Laino AM, Nufer KL, Adams L, Raphael AP, Menzies SW, et al. Clinical Perspective of 3D Total Body Photography for Early Detection and Screening of Melanoma. Front Med (Lausanne) 2018;5:152 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29911103.
  23. Olsen CM, Green AC, Neale RE, Webb PM, Cicero RA, Jackman LM, et al. Cohort profile: the QSkin Sun and Health Study. Int J Epidemiol 2012 Aug;41(4):929-929i Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22933644.
  24. Iannacone MR, Sinnya S, Pandeya N, Isbel N, Campbell S, Fawcett J, et al. Prevalence of Skin Cancer and Related Skin Tumors in High-Risk Kidney and Liver Transplant Recipients in Queensland, Australia. J Invest Dermatol 2016 Jul;136(7):1382-1386 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26968258.
  25. Janda M, Soyer HP. Using Advances in Skin Imaging Technology and Genomics for the Early Detection and Prevention of Melanoma. Dermatology 2019;235(1):1-3 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30253394.
  26. Janda M, Horsham C, Koh U, Gillespie N, Loescher LJ, Vagenas D, et al. Redesigning Skin Cancer Early Detection and Care Using a New Mobile Health Application: Protocol of the SKIN Research Project, a Randomised Controlled Trial. Dermatology 2019;235(1):11-18 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30404085.

Back to top