PURPOSE: This study evaluated and compared the predictive values of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram and the Stanford nomogram for predicting non-sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in patients with SLN metastasis, which were the only nomograms available online, and verified their usefulness in the macrometastasis or micrometastasis/isolated tumor cell (ITC) subgroups. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with a positive SLN biopsy who underwent axillary lymph node dissection were analyzed. The predicted probability of non-SLN metastasis was calculated using a computerized model from the websites for each nomogram. The results were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curve for each model. The false-negative and false-positive rates were also calculated. RESULTS: The AUC for the entire population was 0.701 with the MSKCC nomogram and 0.756 with the Stanford nomogram. The AUCs of macrometastasis and micrometastasis/ITC groups were 0.680 and 0.469 with the MSKCC nomogram, and were 0.676 and 0.574 with the Stanford nomogram, respectively. Although false-negative cases were not identified, the false-positive rates were high in both subgroups when using these nomograms. CONCLUSIONS: This independent comparison found no significant difference between the two nomograms. In this study, these nomograms could not reliably predict positive non-SLN in patients with SLN micrometastasis/ITC.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated and compared the predictive values of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram and the Stanford nomogram for predicting non-sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in patients with SLN metastasis, which were the only nomograms available online, and verified their usefulness in the macrometastasis or micrometastasis/isolated tumor cell (ITC) subgroups. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with a positive SLN biopsy who underwent axillary lymph node dissection were analyzed. The predicted probability of non-SLN metastasis was calculated using a computerized model from the websites for each nomogram. The results were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curve for each model. The false-negative and false-positive rates were also calculated. RESULTS: The AUC for the entire population was 0.701 with the MSKCC nomogram and 0.756 with the Stanford nomogram. The AUCs of macrometastasis and micrometastasis/ITC groups were 0.680 and 0.469 with the MSKCC nomogram, and were 0.676 and 0.574 with the Stanford nomogram, respectively. Although false-negative cases were not identified, the false-positive rates were high in both subgroups when using these nomograms. CONCLUSIONS: This independent comparison found no significant difference between the two nomograms. In this study, these nomograms could not reliably predict positive non-SLN in patients with SLN micrometastasis/ITC.
Authors: James W Jakub; Nils M Diaz; Mark D Ebert; Alan Cantor; Douglas S Reintgen; Elisabeth L Dupont; Alan R Shons; Charles E Cox Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Heather Rutledge; Joseph Davis; Ronald Chiu; Michael Cibull; Yolanda Brill; Patrick McGrath; Luis Samayoa Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: C Reynolds; R Mick; J H Donohue; C S Grant; D R Farley; L S Callans; S G Orel; G L Keeney; T J Lawton; B J Czerniecki Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Giovanni D'Eredità; Vito Leopoldo Troilo; Carmela Giardina; Anna Napoli; Giuseppe Rubini; Fernando Fischetti; Tommaso Berardi Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272