Next Article in Journal
Reovirus Infections in Broiler Chickens: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Critical Analysis of Protocols for Good Veterinary Practices in Monitoring, Prevention and Treatment of Ketosis in Dairy Cows
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/vetsci12111020
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Practices of Dog and Cat Owners Regarding Skin Tumors: A Cross-Sectional Study

by
Cláudia Cardoso
1,2,†,
Rita Files
1,†,
Filipe Silva
1,2,
Patricia Barbedo
1,
Justina Prada
1,2,* and
Isabel Pires
1,2
1
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Animal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Vet. Sci. 2025, 12(11), 1020; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12111020
Submission received: 26 September 2025 / Revised: 18 October 2025 / Accepted: 18 October 2025 / Published: 22 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Veterinary Neurology and Oncology in Europe: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Skin tumors are one of the most common types of cancer in dogs and cats, often influenced by factors such as sun exposure, genetics, and age. Because pets share the same environment as their owners, understanding what owners know and do about these tumors is essential for early detection and treatment. In this study, we surveyed 420 pet owners in Portugal to assess their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding pet ownership. Most owners were aware that pets can develop skin tumors, but many were unaware of the most common tumor types and associated risk factors. While most said they would take their pet to a veterinarian if they noticed suspicious skin changes, few regularly check their pets’ skin or use sun protection. Owners who had pets with previous tumors or a family history of skin cancer showed better knowledge and more proactive behaviors. These results reveal the need for better education and communication to help owners detect and prevent skin tumors early, thereby improving the health and wellbeing of dogs and cats.

Abstract

Skin tumors are among the most common neoplasms in dogs and cats, sharing biological and environmental risk factors with human cancers. Owners play a critical role in early detection, yet little is known about their knowledge and attitudes. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and practices of Portuguese pet owners regarding skin tumors in companion animals. An online cross-sectional survey was completed by 420 respondents. Overall, awareness of risk factors such as sun exposure and age was relatively high, but most owners were unable to identify specific tumor types or locations. Only one-quarter believed skin tumors are curable, while the majority expressed uncertainty. Women, those with multiple or long-term pet ownership, and individuals with family or personal experience of cancer showed greater knowledge and more proactive behaviors. However, a gap between knowledge and practice still remains. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational strategies to enhance owners’ health literacy, facilitate early detection, and promote timely veterinary care.

1. Introduction

Cancer in companion animals, particularly dogs and cats, has become an increasing global concern due to the rising number of diagnosed cases. This condition is among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in these species, driving research aimed at understanding its incidence, risk factors, and clinical management. Epidemiological research conducted in various parts of the world has yielded valuable insights into tumors in these animals, with variations depending on the sample size, geographical region, and inclusion criteria employed [1,2,3,4,5,6].
Beyond their impact on animal health, spontaneous tumors in dogs and cats exhibit remarkable histopathological and biological similarities to human cancers, making them valuable models in comparative oncology. These similarities contribute to the development of new therapeutic approaches and a deeper understanding of tumor biology in both species. Tumor types of particular relevance to human oncology include osteosarcomas, mammary carcinomas, oral melanomas, oral squamous cell carcinomas, soft tissue sarcomas, and malignant non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma [1,4,7,8,9]. While biological parallels exist, environmental and lifestyle factors also play a critical role in the occurrence of cancer in both humans and pets. Because dogs and cats share the same living environment as their owners, they are exposed to many of the same carcinogenic agents. Identifying these risk factors is essential for prevention and timely treatment. Known contributors include exposure to environmental pollutants, ultraviolet radiation, pesticides, and even passive smoking resulting from human habits [10,11].
Among the neoplasms affecting dogs and cats, skin tumors are among the most common, representing a significant proportion of oncological diagnoses [6,7,12,13]. In dogs, approximately 20% to 30% of primary skin and subcutaneous tumors are malignant, whereas in cats, this proportion is even higher, ranging from 50% to 65% [14,15,16,17]. The most frequent skin tumors in dogs include lipomas, mast cell tumors, sebaceous gland tumors, and papillomas. In contrast, in cats, basal cell carcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas, and fibrosarcomas are most prevalent [8,13,16,18].
Owners play a central role in identifying dermatological abnormalities in their pets, as they are often the first to observe changes in the skin. Their ability to recognize risk factors and early clinical signs directly influences the time to diagnosis and initiation of therapy. However, it remains unclear whether most pet owners are aware of common risk factors, including sun exposure, genetic predisposition, and coat color, or whether they can identify clinical signs that may indicate a skin tumor [19].
Furthermore, understanding owners’ perceptions and attitudes toward cancer in pets is essential, as emotional responses, such as fear, fatalism, or misconceptions about treatment costs and prognosis, often influence decision-making. For instance, owners who believe that cancer is invariably fatal may delay seeking veterinary care or choose euthanasia over treatment. Conversely, those with higher awareness are more likely to adopt preventive measures, perform regular skin examinations, and promptly consult a veterinarian [20,21]. Given this context, identifying knowledge gaps, misconceptions, and behavioral patterns among pet owners is critical to guiding targeted educational strategies. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and practices of dog and cat owners in Portugal regarding skin tumors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using an anonymous online questionnaire created with Google Forms. The survey was designed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of pet owners in Portugal, regarding skin tumors in dogs and cats.
The target population consisted of individuals aged 18 years or older residing in Portugal who owned at least one dog or cat. Participation was voluntary, and responses were collected between 26 July 2024, and 30 January 2025. The survey link was shared via email, social media platforms, and professional networks, using a QR code and a short description to encourage participation. Only individuals residing in Portugal and who owned at least one dog or cat were eligible to participate.
The minimum sample size was calculated using the formula proposed by Thrusfield (2018) [22], assuming a 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96), an expected prevalence of 50% (p = 0.5), and a margin of error of 5% (d = 0.05). Although the exact number of dog and cat owners in Portugal is not known, as one person may own more than one animal, a conservative estimate of 4.7 million was used, based on the total number of pet animals living in households (2.8 million dogs and 1.9 million cats, according to national data [23]). Although this figure likely overestimates the number of owners, it was chosen deliberately to avoid underestimation and ensure robust sample representation. Thus, a minimum of 384 valid responses was considered statistically representative.
Before dissemination, a pilot test was conducted with a small group of pet owners to evaluate the clarity, structure, and relevance of the questions. Feedback from the pilot phase was used to improve the final version of the questionnaire.

2.2. Instrument Structure

The questionnaire was divided into five main sections: 1: Informed Consent; 2: Sociodemographic Information—This section collected data on age, gender, nationality, region of residence (North, Center, Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Algarve, Alentejo, Autonomous Regions) and zip code, type of living environment (urban, rural, semi-urban), educational level, family status (whether they had children), and personal or family history of skin cancer; 3: Pet Ownership Profile—This section included questions about the number, type, and duration of pet ownership, as well as any previous experience with pets diagnosed with skin tumors; 4: Knowledge, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Practices—This section assessed participants’ understanding, beliefs, emotional perceptions, and practices related to skin tumors in companion animals.

2.3. Questionnaire Domains

The survey was structured based on the traditional KAP model (Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices), with an additional fourth domain—Perceptions—introduced to distinguish between factual understanding, evaluative beliefs, subjective interpretations, and real-world behaviors.

2.3.1. Knowledge

This domain assessed participants’ factual knowledge regarding various aspects of skin tumors in dogs and cats. The questions were designed to evaluate awareness of the occurrence of skin cancer in companion animals, breed predisposition, the most common types of skin tumors in dogs and cats, their typical anatomical locations, and the causes and risk factors associated with these tumors. The identification of these causes and risk factors was based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature (e.g., sun exposure, genetic predisposition, advanced age, virus). However, additional factors that are not consistently supported by evidence were also included to assess both knowledge about scientifically validated risks and potential misinformation that may influence owners’ decisions.
Knowledge regarding clinical signs and diagnostic tests was also explored. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate their main sources of information, including veterinarians, internet resources, friends/family, and printed media.

2.3.2. Perceptions

This domain addressed participants’ subjective beliefs and emotional interpretations concerning skin tumors in companion animals. It encompassed questions regarding the perceived curability and preventability of skin tumors, their potential severity when left untreated, and the possibility of spontaneous resolution without medical intervention.
In addition, participants’ perceptions of risk were assessed, specifically their beliefs regarding the likelihood of their own pets developing skin tumors.
The domain also examined aspects of self-efficacy and responsibility, including the participants’ self-reported ability to identify suspicious skin lesions, the importance attributed to regular monitoring of their pets’ skin, and the intention to seek veterinary consultation in the event of detecting abnormalities.
Responses were obtained through closed-ended items, employing a three-point Likert scale (“Agree,” “Disagree,” “I don’t know”) for belief-related statements, and dichotomous options (“Yes” or “No”) for questions concerning self-assessed ability and perceived risk.

2.3.3. Attitudes

This domain evaluated participants’ predisposition to act in response to situations related to skin tumors. Questions included willingness to seek veterinary care upon noticing suspicious skin changes and readiness to pay for treatment if their pet was diagnosed with a skin tumor.

2.3.4. Practices

This final domain examined actual behaviors and routines related to the prevention, detection, and management of skin tumors in pets. It included questions on the frequency of skin checks and veterinary visits, exposure to sunlight, and the use of protective measures, as well as hygiene and grooming practices.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 23). Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to summarize categorical variables.
Associations between sociodemographic characteristics, pet ownership profiles, and participants’ responses across the Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Practices domains were assessed using the Chi-square (χ2) test. When more than 20% of expected cell counts were below five, or when both variables were dichotomous (2 × 2 tables), Fisher’s exact test was applied instead.
The normality of continuous variables (e.g., age) was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test, which indicated a non-normal distribution (p < 0.05). Therefore, age was dichotomized based on the median (39 years).
A significance level of p < 0.05 was adopted for all analyses.

3. Results

A total of 420 valid responses were collected. As outlined in Section 2, the survey was structured according to the Knowledge, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Practices framework. Results are presented below by domain, preceded by a sociodemographic and contextual characterization of the sample.

3.1. Participant Profile

3.1.1. Sociodemographic Data

Of the 420 individuals who completed the questionnaire, 397 (94.5%) identified themselves as Portuguese. Six participants were English, and five were either Spanish or Brazilian. The remaining respondents represented other nationalities, with only one individual per nationality.
The majority of participants were female (n = 333; 79.3%), while 87 (20.7%) were male (Figure 1).
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 80 years, with a mean age of 39.14 years (SD = 15.0) and a median age of 39 years. For statistical purposes, age was categorized into two groups based on the median age (Figure 1).
Regarding geographical distribution, most respondents resided in the Northern region, accounting for 60.5% (n = 254). This was followed by the Algarve, with 18.1% (n = 76), and the Central region, with 10.0% (n = 42). The Lisbon Metropolitan Area represented 5.7% (n = 24) of the participants, while the Alentejo region accounted for 3.3% (n = 14). The Autonomous Regions were less represented: 1.9% (n = 8) from the Azores and 0.2% (n = 1) from Madeira (Figure 2).
Concerning living environment, 211 participants (50.2%) reported living in urban areas, 105 (25.0%) in rural areas, and 104 (24.8%) in semi-urban areas.
Most participants held a bachelor’s degree (42.1%; n = 177), followed by secondary education (29.5%; n = 124), a master’s degree (19.5%; n = 82), and a doctorate (6.4%; n = 27). A small number reported having 5 to 9 years of schooling (1.9%; n = 8) or basic education (4th degree) (0.5%; n = 2).
When asked about having children, 28.6% (n = 120) reported having children, whereas 71.4% (n = 300) stated that they did not.
A family history of skin cancer was reported by 10.2% (n = 43) of participants, with melanoma being the most frequently mentioned. The remaining 89.8% (n = 377) indicated no known cases in their family.

3.1.2. Pet Ownership Profile

A total of 61.9% owned more than one pet, while 38.1% had only one. Regarding species, 40.2% owned only dogs, 23.1% only cats, and 36.7% multiple types of animals. The most frequent combinations were dogs and cats (23.1%), followed by a combination of dogs, cats, and exotic animals.
Most participants (71.9%) had owned pets for over nine years, 23.1% for three to eight years, and 3.8% for less than two years (Table 1).
Of the 420 guardians interviewed, 32 (7.6%) reported that their pets had skin tumors, of which 25 (78.1%) were dogs and 7 (21.9%) were cats. The most frequently identified neoplasms were mast cell tumor (3 cases, 9.4%), sarcoma (3 cases, 9.4%), and squamous cell carcinoma (3 cases, 9.4%), followed by hemangioma (3 cases, 9.4%), carcinoma (2 cases, 6.3%), melanoma (1 case, 3.1%), adenoma (1 case, 3.1%), fibrosarcoma (1 case, 3.1%), histiocytoma (1 case, 3.1%), and undifferentiated tumors (2 cases, 6.3%). In the remaining cases, the tumor type was not identified by the guardians. Regarding dog breed, mixed-breed dogs (7 cases, 21.9%) were the most frequently affected, followed by French Bulldogs (4 cases, 12.5%), Labrador Retrievers (4 cases, 12.5%), Breton Spaniel (2 cases, 6.3%), and Portuguese Podengo (2 cases, 6.3%). Other isolated cases were observed in the Dalmatian, Miniature Schnauzer, Poodle, Rafeiro do Alentejo, and Shih Tzu breeds. All animals were European Shorthair cats (7 cases, 21.9%). The predominant age group was between 7 and 13 years, corresponding to 71.9% of the cases. Females were slightly more affected (18 cases, 56.3%) compared to males (14 cases, 43.7%). Concerning coat color, light-colored animals were predominant (27 cases, 84.4%), while dark-coated animals accounted for only 5 cases (15.6%).

3.2. Owners’ Knowledge About Skin Tumors in Dogs and Cats

3.2.1. Knowledge About the Occurrence and Type of Skin Cancer in Animals

A considerable number of participants were either unaware (17.9%; n = 75) or uncertain (12.6%; n = 53) that skin cancer can affect animals. Women, owners with multiple pets, and those with longer pet ownership demonstrated greater awareness of this condition (p = 0.042, p = 0.001, and p = 0.004, respectively).
Most respondents (77.9%; n = 327) correctly recognized that some dog breeds are more predisposed to developing skin tumors, and 74.0% (n = 311) identified similar susceptibility in specific cat breeds. Awareness of canine breed predisposition was higher among younger owners (p < 0.001) and those with more than one animal (p = 0.046). For cats, significant associations were found with age (p < 0.001), education level (p = 0.013), number of pets (p = 0.002), and duration of ownership (p = 0.027).
When asked about specific tumor types, the most frequently recognized tumor types in dogs were mast cell tumors (15.7%; n = 66) and melanomas (8.3%; n = 35), whereas in cats, squamous cell carcinoma (14.3%; n = 60) and melanoma (3.6%; n = 15) were most often identified. Other tumor types mentioned, in descending order of frequency, included carcinomas, lymphoma, fibrosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, lipoma, histiocytoma, and hemangiosarcoma. However, most participants selected “I don’t know”—66.2% (n = 278) for dogs and 69.5% (n = 292) for cats. Uncertainty (“I don’t know”) about tumor type in dogs and cats was significantly more common among older (p < 0.001), male (p = 0.006), urban or semi-urban participants (p = 0.020; p = 0.016), single-pet owners (p = 0.053; p = 0.003), and those with shorter ownership duration (p = 0.004; p = 0.006). Participants living in rural areas were more likely to identify basal cell carcinoma as the most frequent canine skin tumor (p = 0.003).
When asked directly whether squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a type of skin cancer, 59.5% (n = 250) answered affirmatively, while 39.3% (n = 165) selected “I don’t know.
When asked about the most common anatomical sites of skin tumors in dogs, respondents most frequently selected the body/trunk (21.4%, n = 90), head (20.0%, n = 84), and limbs (11.2%, n = 47) (Figure 3). However, 57.9% (n = 243) answered “I don’t know,” particularly younger owners (p = 0.004) and those with a single pet (p = 0.011).
For cats, the head was most frequently cited as the common tumor site (39.0%, n = 164), followed by the body/trunk (6.4%, n = 27) and limbs (0.7%, n = 3). Over half of the respondents (54.5%, n = 229) selected “I don’t know” (Figure 3), more frequently among younger participants (p = 0.001), men (p = 0.002), and single-pet owners (p < 0.001).
When specifically asked about the ears of white cats, 49.8% (n = 209) of respondents acknowledged that tumors frequently occur in this area, while 49.5% (n = 208) were unsure. Women were more likely to identify high-risk locations, particularly the head (p = 0.001) and ears of white cats (p = 0.025). Likewise, younger participants (p = 0.004), single-pet owners (p < 0.001), and those with shorter ownership duration (p = 0.019) more often mentioned the head as a frequent tumor site. Recognition that white cats are commonly affected in the ears was also associated with having children (p = 0.011), a family history of cancer (p = 0.008), owning multiple animals (p < 0.001), and longer ownership duration (p = 0.036).

3.2.2. Knowledge of Causes and Risk Factors Associated with Skin Tumors

Overall, awareness of well-established risk factors was relatively high. A large majority of respondents identified genetic predisposition (81.9%; n = 344), sun exposure (78.8%; n = 331), and old age (74.5%; n = 313) as significant contributors to the development of skin tumors. Light-colored fur was also widely recognized as a risk factor (68.1%; n = 286).
Perceptions of risk factors were influenced by participant profile. Younger owners were more likely to identify light-colored eyes (p = 0.045), personal or family history of cancer (p = 0.014), medical treatments (p < 0.001), lack of vaccination (p < 0.001), lack of deworming (p < 0.001), use of pipettes (p = 0.006), and use of disinfectants (p < 0.001) as risk factors. Women more frequently recognized sun exposure (p = 0.001) and light coat color (p < 0.001). Rural and semi-urban participants also cited sun exposure more often (p = 0.003). Having children was associated with broader risk perception, particularly regarding sun exposure (p = 0.019). A family history of cancer was associated with light-colored eyes (p = 0.018). Owners of multiple pets more often considered light coat color a risk factor (p = 0.008), while long-term owners more frequently mentioned disinfectant use (p = 0.011). Owners of pets previously affected by skin tumors were more likely to associate vaccination (p < 0.001) and disinfectant use (p = 0.017) with cancer risk.
The results revealed notable knowledge gaps regarding potential risk factors. Between 35–45% of respondents cited medical treatments, poor skin hygiene, and lack of external deworming as possible contributors, but were unsure of their actual role. High uncertainty was observed for the use of spot-on pipettes (57.9%, n = 243) and disinfectants (50.0%, n = 210). Similarly, many participants were uncertain about clipping (43.1%, n = 181) and frequent bathing (54.3%, n = 228). A summary is provided in Table 2.
A small proportion of respondents believed that male animals are more frequently affected (4.5%; n = 19), while the vast majority (79.5%; n = 334), indicated uncertainty about this potential correlation. Likewise, the association between guardians’ history of skin cancer and the risk of cancer in their animals was unclear to most participants, with 39.8% (n = 167) responding “don’t know”. When asked whether exposure to certain types of viruses could cause skin cancer in animals, the majority of participants stated they did not know (see Table 2).

3.2.3. Knowledge About the Identification of Clinical Signs

A considerable portion of respondents recognized suspicious clinical signs, and only 4.8% (n = 21) reported not knowing. The most frequently recognized signs were non-healing wounds (89.0%; n = 374), followed closely by nodules or lumps (63.8%; n = 268), pigmented lesions or moles (62.4%; n = 262), and changes in skin or hair color (62.1%; n = 261). Itching or irritation was acknowledged by 43.3% (n = 182) of participants (Figure 4).
Recognition of these clinical signs was significantly associated with participant characteristics. Younger owners were more likely to report changes in coat or skin color (p = 0.019), non-healing wounds (p = 0.021), nodules (p = 0.010), discoloration (p = 0.002), and itching or irritation (p = 0.005) as warning signs. However, they also selected “I don’t know” more frequently (p = 0.001). Recognition of itching or irritation was further associated with a family history of cancer (p = 0.039). Owners of pets with prior skin tumors were more likely to identify coat or skin color changes (p = 0.004), nodules (p = 0.023), discoloration (p = 0.020), and itching or irritation (p = 0.003). “I don’t know” responses were also more frequent among men (p = 0.038).

3.2.4. Knowledge About Diagnosis

Regarding diagnostic methods, most participants (89.5%; n = 376) correctly identified biopsy as an essential tool for confirming diagnosis. In contrast, 16.2% (n = 68) believed that visual assessment alone could be used to diagnose skin cancer, while 49.0% (n = 206) disagreed, and 34.8% (n = 146) were uncertain. Misconceptions about visual diagnosis were more common among younger participants (p = 0.002), single-pet owners (p = 0.045), and those whose pets had previously developed skin tumors (p = 0.041).

3.2.5. Main Information Sources

Veterinarians (62.1%; n = 283) and the internet (67.4%; n = 261) were the main sources of information, followed by books, magazines, and friends/family.

3.3. Perceptions

Participants expressed varied subjective beliefs and emotional interpretations regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and perceived risk of skin tumors in pets. Although 75.5% (n = 317) believed that skin tumors could be prevented, only 24.5% (n = 103) considered them generally curable, while 56.0% (n = 235) were uncertain. Belief in prevention was more frequent among owners with children (p = 0.022), long-term owners (p = 0.022), and those with a family history of skin cancer (p = 0.006) or pets previously diagnosed with tumors (p = 0.017). Owners of pets with prior tumors were also more likely to consider most tumors curable (p = 0.026).
Most respondents (81.2%, n = 341) agreed that untreated tumors could be fatal. Owners of pets previously diagnosed with tumors were more likely to share this belief (p = 0.034).
Most participants (78.3%, n = 329) disagreed with the statement that tumors can resolve without medical treatment, while only 1.2% (n = 5) believed they could, and 20.5% (n = 86) responded “don’t know.” Age was associated with this belief (p = 0.002), with younger owners more likely to disagree and older owners more often responding “don’t know.” Multiple-pet owners were also more likely to disagree that tumors can resolve without medical treatment (p = 0.019).
A majority of respondents (87.1%, n = 366) supported initiating treatment as soon as cancer is suspected to prevent disease progression, with only 1.9% (n = 8) disagreeing and 11.0% (n = 46) uncertain. Women (p = 0.040) and multiple-pet owners (p = 0.002) more strongly supported this necessity.
Most respondents (90.4%, n = 378) agreed that pets should be taken to a veterinarian if any skin abnormality is observed, whereas 5.3% (n = 22) disagreed and 4.3% (n = 18) were neutral. Owners with children were significantly more likely to value veterinary consultation (p < 0.001). Similarly, 88.8% (n = 371) agreed that regular monitoring of their pet’s skin is important, while 5.3% (n = 22) disagreed and 6.0% (n = 25) remained neutral. Owners with children also placed greater importance on routine skin checks (p < 0.001).
The majority of participants (55.0%, n = 232) reported not feeling capable of identifying suspicious skin lesions. However, 45.0% (n = 188) believed they could recognize such signs (Figure 5). The ability to identify suspicious lesions was associated with age (p < 0.001), number of pets (p = 0.002), and duration of ownership (p = 0.001), being more common among younger, multiple-pet, and long-term owners.
Most owners did not believe their pets were at risk of developing skin cancer (Figure 6). This perception of a high risk was associated with previous experience of pet tumors (p < 0.001) and was more common among long-term owners (p < 0.001).

3.4. Attitudes

Respondents demonstrated a generally serious and proactive attitude toward skin tumors in pets. Most (90.7%) stated they would take their pet to a veterinarian if skin changes were observed. Gender influenced these reactions (p = 0.028), with women more often indicating immediate veterinary consultation, while men were more likely to wait or seek information first. Previous experience with pet tumors was also significant (p = 0.005), as these owners reported more frequent and prompt veterinary visits.
When asked about willingness to pay for treatment, the majority expressed strong commitment: 44.8% (n = 188) stated they would do so without hesitation, and 49.5% (n = 208) would pay, though with financial limitations. A smaller proportion were unsure (4.5%; n = 19), and only 1.2% (n = 5) indicated they would not be willing to pay for treatment.

3.5. Practices

This domain analyzed the actual behaviors and routines of participants regarding the prevention, early detection, and management of skin tumors in companion animals.

3.5.1. Skin Checks and Veterinary Visits

Regarding self-monitoring, 38.3% (n = 161) of owners reported frequently checking their pets’ skin, 40.7% (n = 171) did so occasionally, and 16.4% (n = 69) rarely performed checks. A minority (4.5%; n = 19) stated they never examined their pets. Owners whose pets had previously developed skin tumors were significantly more likely to report regular skin checks (p = 0.044).
When asked about veterinary visits, 57.1% (n = 240) of participants took their pets to the veterinarian twice or more per year, while 29.8% (n = 125) visited the veterinarian once annually. A smaller proportion sought care only when the animal was ill (7.4%; n = 31), or did not attend veterinary consultations every year (5.7%; n = 24). Routine veterinary care, including vaccination and deworming, was well established, with 78.6% (n = 330) of respondents reporting regular preventive visits, compared to 21.4% (n = 90) who only attended in case of illness.

3.5.2. Sun Exposure and Protective Measures

Most animals were reported to spend time sunbathing during the day (75.7%; n = 318), although owners rarely specified the duration of exposure. Among these, 25.5% (n = 107) estimated exposure of up to 1 h, and 41.2% (n = 173) reported more than 1 h. A family history of cancer was associated with shorter reported sun exposure (p = 0.026).
Concerning sun protection, 61.0% (n = 256) stated they actively protected their pets from excessive sun, while 39.0% (n = 164) did not.
The use of sunscreen was minimal: only 4.5% (n = 19) applied it during peak sunlight hours, and 3.3% (n = 14) used it outdoors in the summer. The vast majority, 92.1% (n = 387), reported never using sunscreen on their pets.

3.5.3. Hygiene and Grooming Practices

Regarding hygiene, 60.0% (n = 252) of owners reported bathing their pets, most commonly less than once per month (38.1%, n = 160). Only 6.0% (n = 25) bathed their pets more than once per month, and 19.3% (n = 81) did so monthly. A family history of cancer was associated with higher bathing frequency (p = 0.025).
A total of 76.2% (n = 320) of respondents brushed their pets, with 36.9% (n = 155) doing so more than once per month, while 23.8% (n = 100) never brushed them. Brushing frequency was associated with ownership duration (p = 0.031) and the presence of children in the household (p = 0.021).

4. Discussion

Cancer is a significant cause of death in companion animals, especially dogs and cats, posing a growing challenge for veterinarians. Their shorter lifespans contribute to higher annual neoplasia rates than in humans [1,24,25]. Among these, skin tumors are most frequent, largely due to continuous exposure to environmental carcinogens [26,27,28].
Most veterinary oncology studies focus on clinical aspects, but owner perspectives are increasingly recognized as essential [29,30,31,32]. Using an adapted KAP approach, this study explored Portuguese pet owners’ knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and practices regarding skin tumors in dogs and cats.
Most respondents were concerned and willing to seek veterinary care. However, important knowledge gaps remain in early detection, risk-factor awareness, and perceptions of prognosis.
A great number of respondents were women, urban residents, and highly educated, similar to other studies, which may have increased general awareness. However, only 69.5% knew that animals can develop skin tumors, and most could not name specific types. Frequent skin tumors, such as mast cell tumors, melanomas, and squamous cell carcinomas [33,34,35] were mentioned occasionally, suggesting selective and limited disease knowledge.
A similar pattern was observed in the recognition of risk factors in our study. Participants widely acknowledged Sun exposure and age as major contributors, while more specific factors, such as the susceptibility of white cats’ ears, were often underestimated. Genetic and chemical risk factors also generated considerable uncertainty among respondents. In the literature, sun exposure and age were recognized risk factors [16,19], with most cases between 6 and 14 years [19,36,37], though papillomas and histiocytomas occur in younger dogs [7,38,39]. Sex-related patterns have also been reported, with females more commonly affected in dogs and males in cats [7,38]. Several dog breeds, including Boxers, Terriers, Bullmastiffs, Basset Hounds, Weimaraners, Kerry Blue Terriers, and Norwegian Elkhounds, present increased risk, whereas no specific breed predisposition has been described in cats [19,40,41]. Moreover, owners’ awareness of viral oncogenesis remains low, despite papillomaviruses being well-established causes of skin tumors in both animals [42,43,44] and humans [45,46,47], underscoring the owner education.
One of the most concerning findings was the belief in curability; only 24.5% believed that skin tumors are treatable, reflecting fatalistic views that may delay care and reduce treatment adherence. Encouragingly, 89.5% recognized the importance of biopsy, and 87.1% supported early treatment to prevent progression.
Only 7.6% of respondents reported having had a pet diagnosed with a skin tumor. While this may reflect real prevalence rates, it could also be the result of underdiagnosis, unawareness, or recall bias. The characteristics of the affected animals, light-colored coats, neutered status, and an age range of 7 to 13 align with the scientific literature [25,48]. Owners with prior experience of pet skin tumors demonstrated greater knowledge, stronger preventive attitudes, and more proactive behaviors, including increased awareness of risk factors, early detection, and regular veterinary checks. These findings suggest that direct experience plays a key role in improving health literacy and promoting behavioral change. Because pets are integral family members [49,50], direct experience with skin oncological disease, human or animal, appears to heighten risk perception and preventive behavior [51,52,53,54].
A family history of skin cancer increased attentiveness to UV and genetic risks, mirroring human studies where fear or loss enhances vigilance [55,56]. This bidirectional influence, where owners draw strength from pets and are more protective in turn, has important implications for veterinary education and public health messaging.
Other sociodemographic variables also influenced results. Women showed greater awareness and proactive behavior. Younger owners recognized environmental risks more, and those with multiple pets practiced more frequent checks and vet visits. These patterns suggest that species-specific and experience-driven strategies may be effective in tailoring educational efforts to meet the individual needs of each species.
Although veterinarians are trusted, only 62.1% cited them as their main information source, slightly below the internet (67.4%). This gap highlights the opportunity for veterinarians to strengthen education during routine visits, building on existing owner trust. Since most owners said they would visit a vet if suspicious signs appeared, this trust can be strengthened through better communication.
The study also revealed a noticeable gap between knowledge and practice. Although 75.7% of pets regularly sunbathe, only 7.9% of owners use sun protection. While 90.7% would seek veterinary care if skin changes were noticed, only 38.3% perform regular skin checks, and over half lack confidence in recognizing signs.
Owners’ emotional responses to pet cancer, shock, grief, and anxiety mirror those seen in human patients [57,58,59]. Pessimism about treatment persists, with only 24.5% believing in curability, yet this emotional bond offers an opportunity for communication through empathetic education [33,60,61,62].
Our findings emphasize the need for targeted, evidence-based education adapted to owners’ literacy levels and delivered through trusted channels such as veterinary clinics and community campaigns [63]. Addressing emotional and financial barriers, such as fear of diagnosis, cost concerns, and treatment misconceptions, is essential to encourage timely veterinary care [64,65,66]. From a public health perspective, incorporating behavioral insights into veterinary practice is crucial to bridging the gap between knowledge and action. Owner satisfaction and trust play a key role in treatment adherence and follow-up. Although our study did not directly assess satisfaction, the high proportion of respondents (90.7%) who would seek veterinary care after noticing a skin lesion suggests a foundation of trust that should be reinforced through consistent communication and empathy, as highlighted in previous qualitative studies [64]. However, persistent fears of anesthesia and surgery, particularly in older pets, may still delay care-seeking, as concerns about pain, recovery, or disfigurement often influence owners’ decisions [32].
Breed-specific risks also require greater attention. Purebred animals often show genetic predispositions to certain tumors [67,68,69,70], yet many owners remain unaware of these susceptibilities. Increasing awareness could promote more vigilant preventive practices and personalized veterinary monitoring.
Overall, this study reinforces the value of owner-centered surveys in identifying behavioral patterns, knowledge gaps, and emotional factors influencing animal care. Closing the gap between knowledge and action requires not only effective information delivery but also the integration of behavioral understanding into veterinary communication and education.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, while Portuguese pet owners demonstrate generally responsible attitudes toward skin tumors in dogs and cats, significant knowledge gaps and shortcomings in preventive practices persist. Improving health literacy through continuous education, stronger communication between veterinary professionals and clients, and emotionally intelligent public health campaigns is essential. These efforts are key to promoting early detection, optimizing treatment outcomes, and ultimately enhancing the well-being of companion animals.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vetsci12111020/s1, File S1: Survey.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: C.C. and I.P.; Methodology: C.C., J.P., P.B., F.S. and I.P.; Software: F.S.; Validation: C.C., R.F., F.S., J.P. and I.P.; Formal analysis: F.S., J.P. and I.P.; Investigation: C.C.; Resources: I.P.; Data curation: C.C.; Writing—original draft: C.C., R.F. and I.P.; Writing—review & editing: C.C., R.F., F.S., P.B., J.P. and I.P.; Visualization: I.P.; Supervision: I.P., J.P. and F.S.; Project administration: I.P. and J.P.; Funding acquisition: F.S. and I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), through Research, Development and Innovation Incentives, under the Northern Regional Program 2021–2027 [NORTE2030].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The UTAD Ethics Committee (CE-UTAD) reviewed the project and stated a unanimous favorable ethical opinion. Ref. Doc76-UTAD-2024, 23 July 2024.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

To CECAV U.I.D.B./00772/2020 (DOI: 10.54499/U.I.D.B./00772/2020), funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. De Queiroz, G.F.; Matera, J.M.; Zaidan Dagli, M.L. Clinical Study of Cryosurgery Efficacy in the Treatment of Skin and Subcutaneous Tumors in Dogs and Cats. Vet. Surg. 2008, 37, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Giugliano, R.; Dell’Anno, F.; De Paolis, L.; Crescio, M.I.; Ciccotelli, V.; Vivaldi, B.; Razzuoli, E. Mammary Gland, Skin and Soft Tissue Tumors in Pet Cats: Findings of the Feline Tumors Collected from 2002 to 2022. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1320696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kol, A.; Arzi, B.; Athanasiou, K.A.; Farmer, D.L.; Nolta, J.A.; Rebhun, R.B.; Chen, X.; Griffiths, L.G.; Verstraete, F.J.M.; Murphy, C.J.; et al. Companion Animals: Translational Scientist’s New Best Friends. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015, 7, 308ps21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Meleo, K.A. Tumors of the Skin and Associated Structures. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 1997, 27, 73–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Paynter, A.N.; Dunbar, M.D.; Creevy, K.E.; Ruple, A. Veterinary Big Data: When Data Goes to the Dogs. Animals 2021, 11, 1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zwai, H.; Attar, A.; Morsi, A.; Fetouh, M. Pathological, Histochemical, and Immune-Histochemical Studies on Some Canine-Skin Neoplasm at Sharkia Province, Egypt. Open Vet. J. 2024, 14, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hassan, B.B.; Al-Mokaddem, A.K.; Abdelrahman, H.A.; Samir, A.; Mousa, M.R. Cutaneous Tumors in Dogs: A Retrospective Epidemiological and Histological Study of 112 Cases. AAVS 2021, 10, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chikweto, A.; McNeil, P.; Bhaiyat, M.I.; Stone, D.; Sharma, R.N. Neoplastic and Nonneoplastic Cutaneous Tumors of Dogs in Grenada, West Indies. ISRN Vet. Sci. 2011, 2011, 416435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. MacEwen, E.G. Spontaneous Tumors in Dogs and Cats: Models for the Study of Cancer Biology and Treatment. Cancer Metast Rev. 1990, 9, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Laissaoui, N.; Millán, Y.; Simon Betz, D.; El Mrini, M.; Lamalmi, N.; Azrib, R.; Tligui, N. Evaluation of Canine and Feline Tumors in Morocco: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of 250 Cases (2020–2023). Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2024, 63, 100929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schiffman, J.D.; Breen, M. Comparative Oncology: What Dogs and Other Species Can Teach Us about Humans with Cancer. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2015, 370, 20140231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dobromylskyj, M. Feline Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A Review of the Classification and Histological Grading, with Comparison to Human and Canine. Animals 2022, 12, 2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tamošiūnas, M.; Čiževskis, O.; Viškere, D.; Melderis, M.; Rubins, U.; Cugmas, B. Multimodal Approach of Optical Coherence Tomography and Raman Spectroscopy Can Improve Differentiating Benign and Malignant Skin Tumors in Animal Patients. Cancers 2022, 14, 2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Dhein, E.S.; Heikkilä, U.; Oevermann, A.; Blatter, S.; Meier, D.; Hartnack, S.; Guscetti, F. Incidence Rates of the Most Common Canine Tumors Based on Data from the Swiss Canine Cancer Registry (2008 to 2020). PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0302231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Miller, J.L.; Dark, M.J. Evaluation of the Effect of Formalin Fixation on Skin Specimens in Dogs and Cats. PeerJ 2014, 2, e307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Vail, D.M.; Withrow, S.J. Tumors of the Skin and Subcutaneous Tissues. Small Anim. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 4, 375–401. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wilm, F.; Fragoso, M.; Marzahl, C.; Qiu, J.; Puget, C.; Diehl, L.; Bertram, C.A.; Klopfleisch, R.; Maier, A.; Breininger, K.; et al. Pan-Tumor CAnine cuTaneous Cancer Histology (CATCH) Dataset. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ho, N.T.; Smith, K.C.; Dobromylskyj, M.J. Retrospective Study of More than 9000 Feline Cutaneous Tumours in the UK: 2006–2013. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2018, 20, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meuten, D.J. Tumors in Domestic Animals; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-8138-2179-5. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gray, C.; Fordyce, P. Legal and Ethical Aspects of ‘Best Interests’ Decision-Making for Medical Treatment of Companion Animals in the UK. Animals 2020, 10, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Janke, N.; Coe, J.B.; Bernardo, T.M.; Dewey, C.E.; Stone, E.A. Pet Owners’ and Veterinarians’ Perceptions of Information Exchange and Clinical Decision-Making in Companion Animal Practice. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Veterinary Epidemiology | Wiley Online Books. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118280249#aboutBook-pane (accessed on 24 July 2025).
  23. 3.1 Million Registered Pets in Portugal. Available online: http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2022-11-19/31-million-registered-pets-in-portugal/72206 (accessed on 24 July 2025).
  24. Graf, R.; Pospischil, A.; Guscetti, F.; Meier, D.; Welle, M.; Dettwiler, M. Cutaneous Tumors in Swiss Dogs: Retrospective Data From the Swiss Canine Cancer Registry, 2008–2013. Vet. Pathol. 2018, 55, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sarver, A.L.; Makielski, K.M.; DePauw, T.A.; Schulte, A.J.; Modiano, J.F. Increased Risk of Cancer in Dogs and Humans: A Consequence of Recent Extension of Lifespan beyond Evolutionarily-Determined Limitations? Aging Cancer 2022, 3, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ciaputa, R.; Gach, J.; Baranowski, K.; Dzimira, S.; Janus, I.; Kandefer-Gola, M.; Żebrowski, K.; Nowak, M. Prevalence of Tumours and Tumour-like Lesions in Domestic and Exotic Animals from Lower Silesia and Its Surrounds in Poland in 2014–2017. J. Vet. Res. 2022, 66, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Merlo, D.F.; Rossi, L.; Pellegrino, C.; Ceppi, M.; Cardellino, U.; Capurro, C.; Ratto, A.; Sambucco, P.L.; Sestito, V.; Tanara, G.; et al. Cancer Incidence in Pet Dogs: Findings of the Animal Tumor Registry of Genoa, Italy. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2008, 22, 976–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Śmiech, A.; Bulak, K.; Łopuszyński, W.; Puła, A. Incidence and the Risk of Occurrence of Benign and Malignant Canine Skin Tumours in Poland—A Five-Year Retrospective Study. J. Vet. Res. 2023, 67, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Favrot, C.; Linek, M.; Mueller, R.; Zini, E. International Task Force on Canine Atopic Dermatitis Development of a Questionnaire to Assess the Impact of Atopic Dermatitis on Health-Related Quality of Life of Affected Dogs and Their Owners. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 21, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Noli, C. Assessing Quality of Life for Pets with Dermatologic Disease and Their Owners. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2019, 49, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Noli, C.; Minafò, G.; Galzerano, M. Quality of Life of Dogs with Skin Diseases and Their Owners. Part 1: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire. Vet. Dermatol. 2011, 22, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yazbek, K.V.B.; Fantoni, D.T. Validity of a Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scale for Dogs with Signs of Pain Secondary to Cancer. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005, 226, 1354–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De La Mora Valle, A.; Gómez Gómez, D.; Trasviña Muñoz, E.; Haro, P.; Macias Rioseco, M.; Medina Basulto, G.; Moreno, A.S.; López Valencia, G. Retrospective Study of Malignant Cutaneous Tumors in Dog Populations in Northwest Mexico from 2019 to 2021. Animals 2025, 15, 1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Souza, T.M.d.; Fighera, R.A.; Irigoyen, L.F.; Barros, C.S.L.d. Estudo retrospectivo de 761 tumores cutâneos em cães. Cienc. Rural 2006, 36, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Willcox, J.L.; Marks, S.L.; Ueda, Y.; Skorupski, K.A. Clinical Features and Outcome of Dermal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in 193 Dogs (1987–2017). Vet. Comp. Oncol. 2019, 17, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Antoniou, A.; Evripidou, N.; Panayiotou, S.; Spanoudes, K.; Damianou, C. Treatment of Canine and Feline Sarcoma Using MR-Guided Focused Ultrasound System. J. Ultrasound 2022, 25, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Villamil, J.A.; Henry, C.J.; Bryan, J.N.; Ellersieck, M.; Schultz, L.; Tyler, J.W.; Hahn, A.W. Identification of the Most Common Cutaneous Neoplasms in Dogs and Evaluation of Breed and Age Distributions for Selected Neoplasms. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2011, 239, 960–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Costa, C.; Soares, R.; Reis-Filho, J.S.; Leitao, D.; Amendoeira, I.; Schmitt, F.C. Cyclo-Oxygenase 2 Expression Is Associated with Angiogenesis and Lymph Node Metastasis in Human Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Pathol. 2002, 55, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pires, I.; Queiroga, F.L.; Alves, A.; Silva, F.; Lopes, C. Decrease of E-Cadherin Expression in Canine Cutaneous Histiocytoma Appears to Be Related to Its Spontaneous Regression. Anticancer Res. 2009, 29, 2713–2717. [Google Scholar]
  40. Moriello, K.A.; Rosenthal, R.C. Clinical Approach to Tumors of the Skin and Subcutaneous Tissues. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 1990, 20, 1163–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. White, C.R.; Hohenhaus, A.E.; Kelsey, J.; Procter-Gray, E. Cutaneous MCTs: Associations with Spay/Neuter Status, Breed, Body Size, and Phylogenetic Cluster. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2011, 47, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chang, C.-Y.; Chen, W.-T.; Haga, T.; Yamashita, N.; Lee, C.-F.; Tsuzuki, M.; Chang, H.-W. The Detection and Association of Canine Papillomavirus with Benign and Malignant Skin Lesions in Dogs. Viruses 2020, 12, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Feng, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhou, D.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, J.; Sun, H.; Huang, X.; Peng, X.; Yang, Y.; et al. Canine Papillomavirus: Status of Diagnostic Methods and Vaccine Innovations. Virol. J. 2025, 22, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Luff, J.; Rowland, P.; Mader, M.; Orr, C.; Yuan, H. Two Canine Papillomaviruses Associated With Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Two Related Basenji Dogs. Vet. Pathol. 2016, 53, 1160–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hasche, D.; Vinzón, S.E.; Rösl, F. Cutaneous Papillomaviruses and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Causal Agents or Innocent Bystanders? Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Molho-Pessach, V.; Lotem, M. Viral Carcinogenesis in Skin Cancer. Curr. Probl. Dermatol. 2007, 35, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abubakar, M.; Khatoon, N.; Saddique, A.; Bukhari, S.M.A.; Mustfa, W.; Ayyoub, R.; Kiani, M.N.; Rehman, B.u.; Ali, A. Skin cancer and human papillomavirus. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2024, 31, 790–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dos Anjos, D.; Bueno, C.; Mattos-Junior, E.; De Nardi, A.B.; Fonseca-Alves, C.E. VEGF Expression, Cellular Infiltration, and Intratumoral Collagen Levels after Electroporation-Based Treatment of Dogs with Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Life 2021, 11, 1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Walsh, F. Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy. Fam. Process 2009, 48, 481–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. McConnell, A.R.; Paige Lloyd, E.; Humphrey, B.T. We Are Family: Viewing Pets as Family Members Improves Wellbeing. Anthrozoös 2019, 32, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Brown, C.R.; Edwards, S.; Kenney, E.; Pailler, S.; Albino, M.; Carabello, M.; Good, K.; Lopez, J. Family Quality of Life: Pet Owners and Veterinarians Working Together to Reach the Best Outcomes. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2023, 261, 1238–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Montgomery, G.H.; Erblich, J.; DiLorenzo, T.; Bovbjerg, D.H. Family and Friends with Disease:: Their Impact on Perceived Risk. Prev. Med. 2003, 37, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mellon, S.; Gold, R.; Janisse, J.; Cichon, M.; Tainsky, M.A.; Simon, M.S.; Korczak, J. Risk Perception and Cancer Worries in Families at Increased Risk of Familial Breast/Ovarian Cancer. Psychooncology 2008, 17, 756–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McKeague, B.; Maguire, R. “The Effects of Cancer on a Family Are Way beyond the Person Who’s Had It”: The Experience and Effect of a Familial Cancer Diagnosis on the Health Behaviours of Family Members. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2021, 51, 101905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Perceptions and Needs of Pet Owners with Cancer: Results from a National Survey from the CancerCare Pet Assistance and Wellness (PAW) Program—ASCO. Available online: https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/ABSTRACT387310 (accessed on 24 July 2025).
  56. Trigg, J. Examining the Role of Pets in Cancer Survivors’ Physical and Mental Wellbeing. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2022, 40, 834–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nakano, Y.; Matsushima, M.; Nakamori, A.; Hiroma, J.; Matsuo, E.; Wakabayashi, H.; Yoshida, S.; Ichikawa, H.; Kaneko, M.; Mutai, R.; et al. Depression and Anxiety in Pet Owners after a Diagnosis of Cancer in Their Pets: A Cross-Sectional Study in Japan. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e024512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Paz, B.F.; Ferreira, M.G.P.A.; Martins, K.R.; Uccella, L.; Barboza de Nardi, A. Practical Principles of Palliative Care in Veterinary Oncology: Alleviating the Suffering of the Animal, Owner, and Veterinarian. Vet. Med. Int. 2024, 2024, 5565837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Die Trill, M. Anxiety and Sleep Disorders in Cancer Patients. EJC Suppl. 2013, 11, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aragunde-Kohl, U.; Gómez-Galán, J.; Lázaro-Pérez, C.; Martínez-López, J.Á. Interaction and Emotional Connection with Pets: A Descriptive Analysis from Puerto Rico. Animals 2020, 10, 2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Prato-Previde, E.; Basso Ricci, E.; Colombo, E.S. The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding. Animals 2022, 12, 2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Azkona, G. The Impact of Psychosocial Factors on the Human—Pet Bond: Insights from Cat and Dog Owners. Animals 2025, 15, 1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Coe, J.B.; Adams, C.L.; Bonnett, B.N. A Focus Group Study of Veterinarians’ and Pet Owners’ Perceptions of Veterinarian-Client Communication in Companion Animal Practice. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008, 233, 1072–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Corah, L.; Mossop, L.; Dean, R.; Cobb, K. Measuring Satisfaction in the Small Animal Consultation and Its Relationship to Consult Length. Vet. Rec. 2020, 187, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pinello, K.; Pires, I.; Castro, A.F.; Carvalho, P.T.; Santos, A.; De Matos, A.; Queiroga, F.; Canadas-Sousa, A.; Dias-Pereira, P.; Catarino, J.; et al. Cross Species Analysis and Comparison of Tumors in Dogs and Cats, by Age, Sex, Topography and Main Morphologies. Data from Vet-OncoNet. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Coe, J.B.; Adams, C.L.; Bonnett, B.N. Prevalence and Nature of Cost Discussions during Clinical Appointments in Companion Animal Practice. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2009, 234, 1418–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Di Teodoro, G.; Cito, F.; Salini, R.; Baffoni, M.; Defourny, S.V.P.; Cocco, A.; D’Alterio, N.; Palmieri, C.; Petrini, A. Pathology-Based Animal Cancer Registry of Abruzzo and Molise Regions (Central Italy): A Ten-Year Retrospective Study (2014–2023). Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Dobson, J.M. Breed-Predispositions to Cancer in Pedigree Dogs. ISRN Vet. Sci. 2013, 2013, 941275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kok, M.K.; Chambers, J.K.; Tsuboi, M.; Nishimura, R.; Tsujimoto, H.; Uchida, K.; Nakayama, H. Retrospective Study of Canine Cutaneous Tumors in Japan, 2008–2017. J Vet Med Sci 2019, 81, 1133–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shoop, S.J.; Marlow, S.; Church, D.B.; English, K.; McGreevy, P.D.; Stell, A.J.; Thomson, P.C.; O’Neill, D.G.; Brodbelt, D.C. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Mast Cell Tumours in Dogs in England. Canine Genet. Epidemiol. 2015, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vetsci 12 01020 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of respondents by sex (left) and by age group based on the median age of 39 years (right).
Figure 1. Distribution of respondents by sex (left) and by age group based on the median age of 39 years (right).
Vetsci 12 01020 g001
Vetsci 12 01020 g002
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the owners who answered the questionnaire.
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the owners who answered the questionnaire.
Vetsci 12 01020 g002
Vetsci 12 01020 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of participants’ responses regarding the most common anatomical sites for skin tumors in dogs and cats.
Figure 3. Distribution of participants’ responses regarding the most common anatomical sites for skin tumors in dogs and cats.
Vetsci 12 01020 g003
Vetsci 12 01020 g004
Figure 4. Frequency with which participants recognized possible signs associated with skin tumors in animals.
Figure 4. Frequency with which participants recognized possible signs associated with skin tumors in animals.
Vetsci 12 01020 g004
Vetsci 12 01020 g005
Figure 5. Owners’ responses on their ability to recognize clinical signs of skin tumors in animals, categorized as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Figure 5. Owners’ responses on their ability to recognize clinical signs of skin tumors in animals, categorized as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Vetsci 12 01020 g005
Vetsci 12 01020 g006
Figure 6. Owners’ perception of their animals being at risk of developing skin tumors, with responses categorized as ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or I don’t Know.
Figure 6. Owners’ perception of their animals being at risk of developing skin tumors, with responses categorized as ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or I don’t Know.
Vetsci 12 01020 g006
Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of Responses from Guardians Regarding the Number of Pets and Duration of Pet Ownership.
Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of Responses from Guardians Regarding the Number of Pets and Duration of Pet Ownership.
Question/Responsen%
How many pets do you have?16061.9%
One26038.1%
More than one
What are the species of animals?
Only Dog16940.2%
Only Cat9723.1%
Multiple types of animals15436.7%
Dogs and Cats9723.1%
Cats, Dogs, and Exotic animals215%
Dogs, Cats, and Livestock92.1%
Dogs and Exotic animals92.1%
Cats and Exotic animals81.9%
Dogs and Livestock71.7%
Dogs, Cats, Exotic animals and Livestock30.7%
How long have you had pets?
Less than 2 years163.8%
Between 3 and 8 years9723.1%
More than 9 years30271.9%
Not specified51.2%
Table 2. Owners’ Responses to Statements Regarding the Risks and Causes of Skin Tumors in Dogs and Cats.
Table 2. Owners’ Responses to Statements Regarding the Risks and Causes of Skin Tumors in Dogs and Cats.
Etiological/Risk FactorsYes
n (%)		No
n (%)		I Don’t Know
n (%)
Sun exposure331 (78.8%)17 (4.0%)72 (17.1%)
Light-colored fur286 (68.1%)21 (5.0%)113 (26.9%)
Light colored eyes174 (41.4%)73 (17.4%)173 (41.2%)
More frequent in males19 (4.5%)67 (16.0%)334 (79.5%)
Owner with skin cancer20 (4.8%)233 (55.5%)167 (39.8%)
Some medical treatments171 (40.7%)46 (11.0%)203 (48.3%)
Lack of vaccination132 (31.4%)121 (28.8%)167 (39.8%)
Lack of external deworming150 (35.7%)99 (23.6%)171 (40.7%)
Use of spot-on pipettes44 (10.5%)133 (31.7%)243 (57.9%)
Use of disinfectants124 (29.5%)85 (20.2%)211 (50.2%)
Clipping93 (22.1%)145 (34.5%)182 (43.3%)
Old age313 (74.5%)14 (3.3%)93 (22.1%)
Genetic predisposition344 (81.9%)8(1.9%)68 (16.2%)
Poor skin hygiene190 (45.2%)85 (20.2%)145 (34.5%)
More than one bath per month44 (10.5%)147 (35.0%)229 (54.5%)
Exposure to certain types of viruses183 (43.6%)18 (4.3%)219 (52.1%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cardoso, C.; Files, R.; Silva, F.; Barbedo, P.; Prada, J.; Pires, I. Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Practices of Dog and Cat Owners Regarding Skin Tumors: A Cross-Sectional Study. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12111020

AMA Style

Cardoso C, Files R, Silva F, Barbedo P, Prada J, Pires I. Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Practices of Dog and Cat Owners Regarding Skin Tumors: A Cross-Sectional Study. Veterinary Sciences. 2025; 12(11):1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12111020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cardoso, Cláudia, Rita Files, Filipe Silva, Patricia Barbedo, Justina Prada, and Isabel Pires. 2025. "Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Practices of Dog and Cat Owners Regarding Skin Tumors: A Cross-Sectional Study" Veterinary Sciences 12, no. 11: 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12111020

APA Style

Cardoso, C., Files, R., Silva, F., Barbedo, P., Prada, J., & Pires, I. (2025). Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Practices of Dog and Cat Owners Regarding Skin Tumors: A Cross-Sectional Study. Veterinary Sciences, 12(11), 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12111020

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop