Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Original Article | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023273 1 Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma in Chile: Differences in Tumor Thickness and Overall Survival Between Patients From Public and Private Health Care Centers Guisella Martínez1, Francisco Bobadilla1,2, Francisca Kinzel1, Javier Fernández3, Ivo Sazunic4, María Magdalena Delgado5, Laura Segovia6, Andrea Zamudio7, Nadia Vega1,8 1 Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile 2 Dermatology Service, Hospital Barros Luco Trudeau, Santiago, Chile 3 Centro Internacional de Estudios Clínicos, Probity Medical Research, Santiago, Chile 4 Histodiagnostic Laboratory Málaga, Santiago, Chile 5 Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, Santiago, Chile 6 Department of Pathology, Hospital Barros Luco Trudeau, Santiago, Chile 7 Royal Australian College of General practitioners, Australia 8 Dermatology Service, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile Key words: melanoma, health care disparities, tumor thickness, Breslow, socioeconomic status Citation: Martínez G, Bobadilla F, Kinzel F, et al. Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma in Chile: Differences in Tumor Thickness and Overall Survival Between Patients From Public and Private Health Care Centers. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023273. DOI: https://doi .org/10.5826/dpc.1304a273 Accepted: May 18, 2023; Published: October 2023 Copyright: ©2023 Martínez et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Funding: None. Competing Interests: None. Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication. Corresponding Author: Francisca Kinzel, Servicio de Dermatología, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Dr. Carlos Lorca Tobar 999, Santiago de Chile. Phone number: 56229788173 E-mail: francisca.kinzel.m@gmail.com Introduction: A low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with lower survival rates in cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). In South America, there are few studies that analyze CMM data ac- cording to SES. Objectives: To determine the differences in microstaging and overall survival in CMM between public and private health care centers. Methods: Retrospective cohort study. Histopathological reports with a diagnosis of CMM from two public hospitals (PuH) and one private health care center (PrH) in Santiago from 2008 to 2018 were included. Patients’ death certificates were obtained to estimate overall survival. Results: 1014 MMC were found. The mean age was 58.6 ± 16.8 years and 59.9% corresponded to ABSTRACT 2 Original Article | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023273 Introduction Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is the most frequent cause of skin cancer-related deaths, its incidence has globally increased, and it has been estimated to further grow [1]. Due to its high prevalence in a younger population, it has great epide- miological relevance and repercussions for public health [2,3]. In Chile, the incidence varies significantly by geographic lo- cation, with an average of 2.4 to 3 cases for 100000 inhabitants and an increasing mortality rate between 1997 and 2015 [4,5]. The survival for CMM varies according to the tumoral depth at the time of diagnosis, with higher mortality rates in advanced stages [2]. Observational studies have demon- strated differing mortality rates depending on an individual´s socioeconomic status (SES) [6-9]. Rutherford et al showed that a reduction in socioeconomic inequality was associated with a significant reduction in melanoma mortality rate 5 years from diagnosis [9]. The Chilean health care system includes both private (PrH) and public (PuH) health care centers. Public hospitals mostly benefit those patients with lower SES, and for those individu- als of higher SES, PrH is their main health care provider [4,10] In Chile there is a lack of data on the differences in tumor thickness and survival in CMM according to the SES, making it challenging to establish prognostic differences among these patients. Objectives The objective of this study is to determine differences in tu- moral thickness at the time of diagnosis and survival rates among patients diagnosed with CMM based on their health care provider. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study, which included all his- topathologic reports found with the diagnosis of CMM between January 2008 and December 2018 at two pub- lic hospitals (Hospital San José and Hospital Barros Luco Trudeau) and one private health care center (Laboratorio Histodiagnóstico Málaga) in Santiago, Chile. The exclusion criteria considered recurrent tumors, bi- opsies of extracutaneous melanoma, CMM metastasis, and incisional biopsies. Transected CMM (positive inferior margins) with a depth ≤4 mm (1 mm thickness melanoma compared to PrH (odds ratio 2.77 and 6.06, respectively). Patients with invasive CMM from the PuH were 6.29-fold more likely to die than a patient from the PrH. Conclusions: We observed a great disparity in tumor thickness between the socioeconomic status, re- flecting a later detection and lower survival rate in PuH. Our results highlight a gap on which National Public Health should focus. Original Article | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023273 3 Results A total of 1014 melanomas were identified in both PuH and PrH. The gender distribution was 59.9% (N = 607) women and 40.1% (N = 407) men. The mean age at the time of diag- nosis was 58.6 ± 16.8 years (range: 12-98 years). In the PuH patients, tumors were located on the head and neck (29.9%), trunk (20.3%), palms and soles (16.9%), lower extremities (16.6%), upper extremities (12.5%) and perineal area (1.4%). On the other hand, in the PrH it was more frequent to find melanomas in the trunk (24.8%), followed by lower extremities (22.7%), head and neck (20.7%), upper extremities (18.5%), palms and soles (3.7%) and perineal area (0.9%). There were statistically signifi- cant differences in tumor location between these two groups (P < 0.001). Distribution by health care provider showed that 33.9% of cases (N = 344) were diagnosed in PuH, while 66.1% (N = 670) were diagnosed in PrH. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) in the mean age at the time of diagnosis, with patients in PuH being older with a mean age of 64.2 ± 15.7 years (range: 20-98) compared to PrH patients with a mean age of 55.6 ± 26.6 years (range: 12-92). There was no statistically significant difference by gender, with 63.1% of women and 36.9% of men in the PuH and 58.2% of women and 41.8% of men in PrH (Table 1). About the degree of infiltration, there was a statistically significant difference between public and private health care centers (P < 0.001). In PuH, 34.9% of melanomas were in situ and 65.1% were invasive, while in PrH, 56.1% were in situ and 43.9% were invasive. There was a statistically signif- icant difference in the depth of infiltration of invasive CMM between the PuH and PrH (P < 0.001) (Table 1). Using multivariable logistic regression analysis (ad- justed for age and gender), being diagnosed with CMM in a PuH would increase the risk of having an invasive tumor by 2.77-fold (OR 2.77; CI 2.08-3.68). It also increases the risk of having an invasive melanoma with an infiltration greater than 1mm in depth by 6.06-fold (OR 6.06; CI 4.03- 9.11), adjusted by age and sex when compared with patients seen at PrH. Overall survival rates at the 5-year were 82.4%, with a significant difference between PuH (65.6%) and PrH (94%) (P < 0.001). Patients with invasive CMM in PuH had 6.29-fold higher risk of dying than those on PrH (HR 6.29; P < 0.001; CI 3.91-10.14) (Table 2). 5-year overall survival curves according to tumoral depth are shown in Figure 1 for PuH and in Figure 2 for PrH. Table 1. Characteristics of patients with primary cutaneous melanoma stratified by public hospital (PuH) and private health care center (PrH)a. PuHa PrHa P Gender Female Male 217 (63.1) 127 (36.9) 390 (58.2) 280 (21.8) 0.134 Age (years)b 64.2 ± 15.7 55.6 ± 16.6 <0.001 Infiltration In situ Invasive 120 (34.9) 224 (65.1) 376 (56.1) 294 (43.9) <0.001 Thickness T1 T2 T3 T4 70 (31.5) 43 (19.4) 57 (25.7) 52 (23.4) 223 (76.9) 35 (12.1) 19 (6.5) 13 (4.5) <0.001 a Data are provided as number (percentage), unless otherwise indicated. b Age in years ± Standard deviation Thickness as T1≤ 1 mm, T2 >1.0–2.0 mm, T3 >2.0–4.0 mm and T4 >4.00 mm. Table 2. 5-year overall survival by health care center according to thickness. 5-year OS CI 95% Public Hospital T1 T2 T3 T4 65.6% 86.7% 81.5% 54.9% 28.5% 57.9%- 72.1% 74.9%- 93.1% 63.2%- 91.3% 38.7%- 68.5% 14.1%- 44.7% Private health care center T1 T2 T3 T4 94% 95.6% 95.2% 94.4% 75% 90.2%- 96.4% 91.4%- 97.8% 70.7%- 99.3% 66.6%- 99.2% 40.8%- 91.2% CI = confidence interval; OS = overall survival. Thickness as T1≤ 1 mm, T2 >1.0–2.0 mm, T3 >2.0–4.0 mm and T4 >4.00 mm Figure 1. Overall survival curves according to tumoral depth in public hospitals (PuH). 4 Original Article | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023273 Overall survival rate at 5 years in our study was 82.4%, and there were differences between PrH and PuH. Patients with invasive CMM in PuH had 6.29-fold more mortality risk than patients in PrH, as shown by clear discrepancies in the Kaplan-Meier curve. These findings are consistent with international studies, which have shown that patients with higher SES have more favorable odds of survival [6,19,21-23]. When analyzing the possible causes of these survival differences, besides education and access to dermatologists, insurance, and therefore treatment access, are evident fac- tors to consider. Recently, Rosenthal et al published an arti- cle comparing two forms of health insurance in the United States, one with an integrated health care system and the second group including other private insurances [11]. This study showed that patients in non-integrated private insur- ances that had lower income, had a 70% increased risk of dying from CMM compared to those with higher income, while in the integrated health care system, there was no in- creased risk between SES groups. The location of CMM in the SPu and SPr exhibited sta- tistically significant differences, with a greater prevalence of head and neck melanomas and acral melanomas in the SPu compared to the SPr. However, due to the focus of our study on identifying disparities in tumor thickness and overall survival between healthcare systems, we did not extensively explore the analysis of location. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that location could be an important factor to investi- gate in future studies. Despite its contributions, our study has some limitations. For instance, being a retrospective study may have limita- tions in data collection and analysis. Also, even though we obtained data from two PuH, we had more patients from PrH than PuH, which may not reflect the national distribu- tion of melanoma patients. Additionally, histopathological analysis was performed by different pathologists. However, given the multicentric nature of the study, it was not feasible to have all the data analyzed by a single specialist. Moreover, this study did not include other confounding factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, and did not assess the impact of patient-specific melanoma treatments. The results in the present study have significant clinical relevance. Specifically, the greater tumoral depth in PuH, re- flects that lower-income patients probably have a delay in the detection of CMM and consequently a reduced survival rate. Public health strategies should focus on this gap, in order to benefit the population at risk, for example by considering both clinical-pathologic features and nevus count which rep- resents an easy to access prognostic factor and pathologic ones (in patients with previous melanoma) [(24,25]. This can be achieved by creating targeted prevention and early detec- tion programs that are accessible and effective for patients Conclusions In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on melanoma out- comes. Most studies show that SES is a strong predictor of CMM-specific mortality [11-14]. In Chile and South Amer- ica, the influence of socioeconomic status on CMM has been rarely studied. Our study revealed a significant difference in the degree of infiltration between PuH and PrH, with 34.9% of in situ melanomas in PuH versus 56.1% in PrH. This difference was confirmed in the multivariable analysis, indi- cating a 2.77-fold higher risk of invasive CMM in patients treated at PuH. Several studies have demonstrated significant disparities in tumoral depth and survival rates between individuals with high and low SES (6,15). Mandalá et al reported that 27.5% of patients with low SES had a Breslow >3 mm at diagnosis, compared to 9.41% for those patients with higher SES [15]. In our study, 68.5% of PuH tumors had a Breslow >1mm, compared to 23.1% for those in PrH. Reflecting an increased risk of thick melanoma in PuH by 6.06-fold. Multiple studies have attempted to explain the gap be- tween different SES groups. Education has been proposed as a relevant factor [16-18]. Lower education levels are as- sociated with thicker tumors and more advanced stages at the time of diagnosis, while patients with higher education levels attend more frequently for skin checks and therefore tend to be diagnosed at earlier stages [17,18]. However, the literature shows that even after adjusting for education level, a low SES remained an independent predictor for advanced stages [19]. Individuals with high SES have greater access to dermatologists and therefore to an early diagnosis [8]. On the other hand, lower SES populations may have a lower recognition of early signs of skin cancer [20]. Figure 2. Overall survival curves according to tumoral depth in the private health care center (PrH). Original Article | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023273 5 15. Mandalà M, Imberti GL, Piazzalunga D, et al. Association of Socioeconomic Status With Breslow Thickness and Disease-Free and Overall Survival in Stage I-II Primary Cutaneous Melanoma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(2):113–119. DOI: 10.4065/mcp .2010.0671. PMID: 21282485. PMCID: PMC3031435. 16. Strömberg U, Peterson S, Holmberg E, et al. Cutaneous malig- nant melanoma show geographic and socioeconomic dispar- ities in stage at diagnosis and excess mortality. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(8):993–1000. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2016.1144934. PMID: 26935355. 17. Eriksson H, Lyth J, Månsson-Brahme E, et al. Low level of ed- ucation is associated with later stage at diagnosis and reduced survival in cutaneous malignant melanoma: A nationwide popu- lation-based study in Sweden. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(12):2705– 2716. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.03.013. PMID: 23583439. 18. Youl PH, Baade PD, Parekh S, English D, Elwood M, Aitken JF. Association between melanoma thickness, clinical skin examina- tion and socioeconomic status: results of a large population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2011;128(9):2158–2165. DOI: 10.1002 /ijc.25540. PMID: 20607832. 19. Salvaggio C, Han S, Martires K, et al. Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Ethnicity on Melanoma Presentation and Recur- rence in Caucasian Patients. Oncology. 2016;90(2):79–87. DOI: 10.1159/000441524. PMID: 26840790. 20. Pollitt RA, Swetter SM, Johnson TM, Patil P, Geller A. Examining the pathways linking lower socioeconomic status and advanced melanoma. Cancer. 2012;118(16):4004–4013. DOI: 10.1002 /cncr.26706. PMID: 22179775. 21. Mackie RM, Hole DJ. Incidence and thickness of primary tumours and survival of patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma in relation to socioeconomic status. BMJ. 1996;312(7039):1125– 1128. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7039.1125. PMID: 8620127. PM- CID: PMC2350663. 22. Quintella GL, Koifman S. Socioeconomic status as a predictor of melanoma survival in a series of 1083 cases from Brazil : just a marker of health services accessibility ? Melanoma Res. 2013;23(3):199–205. DOI: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e32835e76f8. PMID: 23442344. 23. Birch-johansen F, Hvilsom G, Kjær T, Storm H. Social inequal- ity and incidence of and survival from malignant melanoma in a population-based study in Denmark, 1994-2003. Eur J Can- cer. 2008;44(14):2043–2049. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.06.016. PMID: 18664405. 24. Ribero S, Davies JR, Requena C, et al. High nevus counts con- fer a favorable prognosis in melanoma patients. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1691-1698. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29525. PMID: 25809795. PMCID: PMC4503475. 25. Quaglino P, Ribero S, Osella-Abate S, et al. Clinico-pathologic features of primary melanoma and sentinel lymph node pre- dictive for non-sentinel lymph node involvement and overall survival in melanoma patients: a single centre observational cohort study. Surg Oncol. 2011;20(4):259-264. DOI: 10.1016/j . suronc.2010.11.001. PMID: 21145730. from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In conclusion, fu- ture strategies should consider the impact of specific pre- vention campaigns and early detection programs for people from lower SES to reduce disparities in melanoma outcomes. References 1. Arnold M, Singh D, Laversanne M, et al. Global Burden of Cu- taneous Melanoma in 2020 and Projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158(5):495-503. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol .2022.0160. PMID: 35353115. PMCID: PMC8968696. 2. Schadendorf D, Fisher DE, Garbe C, et al. Melanoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1(April):1–20. DOI:10.1038/nrdp.2015.3. PMID: 27188223. 3. Nikolaou V, Stratigos AJ. Emerging trends in the epidemiology of melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170(1):11-19. DOI:10.1111 /bjd.1249. PMID: 23815297. 4. Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Primer informe de registros pobla- cionales de cáncer de Chile. Quinquenio 2003-2007. 2012:1–178. 5. Plan Nacional de Cáncer 2018-2028. Ministerio de Salud de Chile. 2019. p. 1-185. Available from: https://www.minsal.cl /wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019.01.23_PLAN-NACIONAL -DE-CANCER_web.pdf; January 2023. 6. Idorn LW, Wulf HC. Socioeconomic status and cutaneous malig- nant melanoma in Northern Europe. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170(4): 787–793. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.12800. PMID: 24359255. 7. Singh SD, Ajani UA, Johnson CJ, et al. Association of cutaneous mel- anoma incidence with area-based socioeconomic indicators-United States, 2004-2006. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65(5 SUPPL. 1):S58. e1–S58.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.05.035. PMID: 22018068. 8. Jiang AJ, Rambhatla P V, Eide MJ. A Systematic Review of Socioeco- nomic and Lifestyle Factors and Melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 172(4):885-915. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13500. PMID: 25354495. 9. Rutherford MJ, Ironmonger L, Ormiston-Smith N, et al. Esti- mating the potential survival gains by eliminating socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis of melanoma. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(s1):S116–S123. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.50. PMID: 25734390. PMCID: PMC4385984. 10. Becerril-Montekio V, Reyes Jde D, Manuel A. Sistema de salud de Chile [The health system of Chile]. Salud Publica Mex. 2011;53 Suppl 2:s132-s143. PMID: 21877079. 11. Rosenthal A, Reddy S, Cooper R, et al. Disparities in melanoma-specific mortality by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health care systems. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88(3):560-567. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.10.004. PMID: 36228942. 12. Hille DM; Cancer Alliance Queensland. Differences in the in- cidence and mortality of melanoma between socioeconomic groups in the Australian state of Queensland: 2001-2016. J Der- matol. 2020;47(2):193-194. DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.15191. PMID: 31849111. 13. Steding-Jessen M, Engberg H, et al. Regional and socioeconomic variation in survival of melanoma patients in Denmark. Dan Med J. 2019;66(11):A5572. PMID: 31686649. 14. Gibson JAG, Dobbs TD, Griffiths R, et al. The association of smoking and socioeconomic status on cutaneous melanoma: a population-based, data-linkage, case-control study. Br J Derma- tol. 2020;182(5):1136-1147. DOI:10.1111/bjd.18526. PMID: 31529485. PMCID: PMC7383980.