INTRODUCTION: To identify melanoma patients at sufficiently low risk of nodal metastases who could avoid sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), several statistical models have been proposed based upon patient/tumor characteristics, including logistic regression, classification trees, random forests, and support vector machines. We sought to validate recently published models meant to predict sentinel node status. METHODS: We queried our comprehensive, prospectively collected melanoma database for consecutive melanoma patients undergoing SLNB. Prediction values were estimated based upon four published models, calculating the same reported metrics: negative predictive value (NPV), rate of negative predictions (RNP), and false-negative rate (FNR). RESULTS: Logistic regression performed comparably with our data when considering NPV (89.4 versus 93.6%); however, the model's specificity was not high enough to significantly reduce the rate of biopsies (SLN reduction rate of 2.9%). When applied to our data, the classification tree produced NPV and reduction in biopsy rates that were lower (87.7 versus 94.1 and 29.8 versus 14.3, respectively). Two published models could not be applied to our data due to model complexity and the use of proprietary software. CONCLUSIONS: Published models meant to reduce the SLNB rate among patients with melanoma either underperformed when applied to our larger dataset, or could not be validated. Differences in selection criteria and histopathologic interpretation likely resulted in underperformance. Statistical predictive models must be developed in a clinically applicable manner to allow for both validation and ultimately clinical utility.
INTRODUCTION: To identify melanomapatients at sufficiently low risk of nodal metastases who could avoid sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), several statistical models have been proposed based upon patient/tumor characteristics, including logistic regression, classification trees, random forests, and support vector machines. We sought to validate recently published models meant to predict sentinel node status. METHODS: We queried our comprehensive, prospectively collected melanoma database for consecutive melanomapatients undergoing SLNB. Prediction values were estimated based upon four published models, calculating the same reported metrics: negative predictive value (NPV), rate of negative predictions (RNP), and false-negative rate (FNR). RESULTS: Logistic regression performed comparably with our data when considering NPV (89.4 versus 93.6%); however, the model's specificity was not high enough to significantly reduce the rate of biopsies (SLN reduction rate of 2.9%). When applied to our data, the classification tree produced NPV and reduction in biopsy rates that were lower (87.7 versus 94.1 and 29.8 versus 14.3, respectively). Two published models could not be applied to our data due to model complexity and the use of proprietary software. CONCLUSIONS: Published models meant to reduce the SLNB rate among patients with melanoma either underperformed when applied to our larger dataset, or could not be validated. Differences in selection criteria and histopathologic interpretation likely resulted in underperformance. Statistical predictive models must be developed in a clinically applicable manner to allow for both validation and ultimately clinical utility.
Authors: Vernon K Sondak; Jeremy M G Taylor; Michael S Sabel; Yue Wang; Lori Lowe; Amelia C Grover; Alfred E Chang; Alan M Yahanda; James Moon; Timothy M Johnson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Soheil S Dadras; Bernhard Lange-Asschenfeldt; Paula Velasco; Lynh Nguyen; Anish Vora; Alona Muzikansky; Katharina Jahnke; Axel Hauschild; Satoshi Hirakawa; Martin C Mihm; Michael Detmar Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: K M McMasters; S L Wong; M J Edwards; M I Ross; C Chao; R D Noyes; V Viar; P B Cerrito; D S Reintgen Journal: Surgery Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Robert Elashoff; Richard Essner; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harald J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Douglas S Reintgen; Brendon J Coventry; Edwin C Glass; He-Jing Wang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Mitra; C Conway; C Walker; M Cook; B Powell; S Lobo; M Chan; M Kissin; G Layer; J Smallwood; C Ottensmeier; P Stanley; H Peach; H Chong; F Elliott; M M Iles; J Nsengimana; J H Barrett; D T Bishop; J A Newton-Bishop Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Dennis L Rousseau; Merrick I Ross; Marcella M Johnson; Victor G Prieto; Jeffrey E Lee; Paul F Mansfield; Jeffrey E Gershenwald Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sandra L Wong; Charles M Balch; Patricia Hurley; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Timothy J Akhurst; Alistair Cochran; Janice N Cormier; Mark Gorman; Theodore Y Kim; Kelly M McMasters; R Dirk Noyes; Lynn M Schuchter; Matias E Valsecchi; Donald L Weaver; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Y Lee; Briana J Lau; Kelly T Huynh; Devin C Flaherty; Ji-Hey Lee; Stacey L Stern; Steve J O'Day; Leland J Foshag; Mark B Faries Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Alexander Meves; Ekaterina Nikolova; Joel B Heim; Edwin J Squirewell; Mark A Cappel; Mark R Pittelkow; Clark C Otley; Nille Behrendt; Ditte M Saunte; Jorgen Lock-Andersen; Louis A Schenck; Amy L Weaver; Vera J Suman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
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