Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Validation Data Used in Melanoma Research and Routine Practice

Importance Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in melanoma research and to guide clinical practice; however, the validation of these PROMs for use in melanoma populations is unknown. Objective To conduct a systematic review and construct an evidence gap map to identify PROMs that have been used in melanoma research and clinical practice and related melanoma-specific validation data. Evidence Review MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Index Medicus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsychINFO were searched in January 2025 including any studies that used a PROM to evaluate outcomes of patients with melanoma published from January 1, 2010, onward to identify instruments relevant to the current era of melanoma diagnosis and treatment. Findings Of 30 895 abstracts screened, 136 articles detailing 124 studies were included in this review; a total of 32 784 participants were included. There were 52 cross-sectional studies (41%), 31 randomized clinical trials (25%), 23 longitudinal studies (19%), 8 pre-post studies (6%), 6 cohort studies (5%), 1 retrospective analysis (1%), 1 phase 4 trial (1%), 1 protocol (1%), and 1 quasi-experimental trial (1%). A total of 61 studies (49%) included a melanoma treatment, with immunotherapy being the most common (24 [39%]), followed by surgery (7 [11%]), and chemotherapy (7 [11%]). These 124 studies used 110 unique PROMs, with patient emotional/psychological well-being (28 [25%]), health-related quality of life (21 [19%]), and patient self-functioning, efficacy, and coping strategies (20 [18%]) being the most common outcome categories. Only 17 PROMs (15%) had melanoma-specific validation data available, of which only the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Melanoma questionnaire had data available for all psychometric variables of interest. Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review, PROMs used in melanoma research and clinical practice were heterogenous, with nearly as many unique instruments identified as studies that used them. Furthermore, few instruments had melanoma-specific validation data available. Future research should aim to address the gaps in melanoma-specific validation data of commonly used PROMs through psychometric evaluation studies to increase researchers’ and clinicians’ confidence in the performance and accuracy of these measures in melanoma populations.