OBJECTIVE: To improve selection for sentinel node (SN) biopsy (SNB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma using statistical models predicting SN status. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: About 80% of patients currently undergoing SNB are node negative. In the absence of conclusive evidence of a SNBassociated survival benefit, these patients may be over-treated. Here, we tested the efficiency of 4 different models in predicting SN status. METHODS: The clinicopathologic data (age, gender, tumor thickness, Clark level, regression, ulceration, histologic subtype, and mitotic index) of 1132 melanoma patients who had undergone SNB at institutions in Italy and Australia were analyzed. Logistic regression, classification tree, random forest, and support vector machine models were fitted to the data. The predictive models were built with the aim of maximizing the negative predictive value (NPV) and reducing the rate of SNB procedures though minimizing the error rate. RESULTS: After cross-validation logistic regression, classification tree, random forest, and support vector machine predictive models obtained clinically relevant NPV (93.6%, 94.0%, 97.1%, and 93.0%, respectively), SNB reduction (27.5%, 29.8%, 18.2%, and 30.1%, respectively), and error rates (1.8%, 1.8%, 0.5%, and 2.1%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Using commonly available clinicopathologic variables, predictive models can preoperatively identify a proportion of patients ( approximately 25%) who might be spared SNB, with an acceptable (1%-2%) error. If validated in large prospective series, these models might be implemented in the clinical setting for improved patient selection, which ultimately would lead to better quality of life for patients and optimization of resource allocation for the health care system.
OBJECTIVE: To improve selection for sentinel node (SN) biopsy (SNB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma using statistical models predicting SN status. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: About 80% of patients currently undergoing SNB are node negative. In the absence of conclusive evidence of a SNBassociated survival benefit, these patients may be over-treated. Here, we tested the efficiency of 4 different models in predicting SN status. METHODS: The clinicopathologic data (age, gender, tumor thickness, Clark level, regression, ulceration, histologic subtype, and mitotic index) of 1132 melanomapatients who had undergone SNB at institutions in Italy and Australia were analyzed. Logistic regression, classification tree, random forest, and support vector machine models were fitted to the data. The predictive models were built with the aim of maximizing the negative predictive value (NPV) and reducing the rate of SNB procedures though minimizing the error rate. RESULTS: After cross-validation logistic regression, classification tree, random forest, and support vector machine predictive models obtained clinically relevant NPV (93.6%, 94.0%, 97.1%, and 93.0%, respectively), SNB reduction (27.5%, 29.8%, 18.2%, and 30.1%, respectively), and error rates (1.8%, 1.8%, 0.5%, and 2.1%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Using commonly available clinicopathologic variables, predictive models can preoperatively identify a proportion of patients ( approximately 25%) who might be spared SNB, with an acceptable (1%-2%) error. If validated in large prospective series, these models might be implemented in the clinical setting for improved patient selection, which ultimately would lead to better quality of life for patients and optimization of resource allocation for the health care system.
Authors: Michael S Sabel; John D Rice; Kent A Griffith; Lori Lowe; Sandra L Wong; Alfred E Chang; Timothy M Johnson; Jeremy M G Taylor Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jennifer N Cooper; Lai Wei; Soledad A Fernandez; Peter C Minneci; Katherine J Deans Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Daniel Eiger; Daniel Arcuschin de Oliveira; Renato Leão de Oliveira; Murilo Costa Sousa; Mireille Darc Cavalcante Brandão; Renato Santos de Oliveira Filho Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2018 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.896
Authors: Domenico Bellomo; Suzette M Arias-Mejias; Chandru Ramana; Joel B Heim; Enrica Quattrocchi; Sindhuja Sominidi-Damodaran; Alina G Bridges; Julia S Lehman; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; Mark R Pittelkow; David J DiCaudo; Barbara A Pockaj; Jason C Sluzevich; Mark A Cappel; Sanjay P Bagaria; Charles Perniciaro; Félicia J Tjien-Fooh; Martin H van Vliet; Jvalini Dwarkasing; Alexander Meves Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-04-14
Authors: Alyss V Robinson; Claire Keeble; Michelle C I Lo; Owen Thornton; Howard Peach; Marc D S Moncrieff; Donald J Dewar; Ryckie G Wade Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 6.968