J F C Woods1, J A De Marchi2, A J Lowery2, A D K Hill2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland. jackwoods@rcsi.ie. 2. Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland. 3. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity is an important prognostic factor in cutaneous melanoma. A nomogram has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) to predict SLN positivity and this may be useful to select patients for SLN biopsy. AIMS: We aimed to determine whether this nomogram would be of clinical use in an Irish population. METHODS: Age, Breslow thickness, Clark's level, presence of ulceration and tumour location indices were used to calculate the probability of SLN positivity with the MSKCC nomogram in 124 patients who underwent SLN biopsy in Beaumont Hospital between 2006 and 2012. Discrimination and calibration of the nomogram were evaluated. Negative predictive value (NPV) of the nomogram was calculated, using a cut-off of nomogram predicted probability of <9%. RESULTS: SLN biopsy was positive in 25 patients (20.16%). Overall predictive accuracy of the nomogram was found to be significant with an area under the curve of 0.805 (95% confidence interval 0.710-0.899). The mean predicted probability correlated well with observed risk (r = 0.887). The NPV was 92.86% with an error rate of 3.23%. This would lead to a reduction in SLN biopsy rate of 45.16%. CONCLUSIONS: This nomogram is valid and accurate at predicting SLN positivity in an Irish population. This may facilitate the clinical decision to perform a SLN biopsy in malignant melanoma.
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity is an important prognostic factor in cutaneous melanoma. A nomogram has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) to predict SLN positivity and this may be useful to select patients for SLN biopsy. AIMS: We aimed to determine whether this nomogram would be of clinical use in an Irish population. METHODS: Age, Breslow thickness, Clark's level, presence of ulceration and tumour location indices were used to calculate the probability of SLN positivity with the MSKCC nomogram in 124 patients who underwent SLN biopsy in Beaumont Hospital between 2006 and 2012. Discrimination and calibration of the nomogram were evaluated. Negative predictive value (NPV) of the nomogram was calculated, using a cut-off of nomogram predicted probability of <9%. RESULTS: SLN biopsy was positive in 25 patients (20.16%). Overall predictive accuracy of the nomogram was found to be significant with an area under the curve of 0.805 (95% confidence interval 0.710-0.899). The mean predicted probability correlated well with observed risk (r = 0.887). The NPV was 92.86% with an error rate of 3.23%. This would lead to a reduction in SLN biopsy rate of 45.16%. CONCLUSIONS: This nomogram is valid and accurate at predicting SLN positivity in an Irish population. This may facilitate the clinical decision to perform a SLN biopsy in malignant melanoma.
Entities:
Keywords:
Irish/Ireland; Melanoma; Nomogram; Predictive value of tests; ROC curve; Sentinel lymph node biopsy
Authors: Richard L White; Gregory D Ayers; Virginia H Stell; Shouluan Ding; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Jonathan C Salo; Barbara A Pockaj; Richard Essner; Mark Faries; Kim James Charney; Eli Avisar; Axel Hauschild; Friederike Egberts; Bruce J Averbook; Carlos A Garberoglio; John T Vetto; Merrick I Ross; David Chu; Vijay Trisal; Harald Hoekstra; Eric Whitman; Harold J Wanebo; Daniel Debonis; Michael Vezeridis; Aaron Chevinsky; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; Yu Shyr; Lynne Berry; Zhiguo Zhao; Seng-Jaw Soong; Stanley P L Leong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S Pasquali; S Mocellin; L G Campana; A Vecchiato; E Bonandini; M C Montesco; S Santarcangelo; G Zavagno; D Nitti; C R Rossi Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Donald L Morton; John F Thompson; Alistair J Cochran; Nicola Mozzillo; Omgo E Nieweg; Daniel F Roses; Harold J Hoekstra; Constantine P Karakousis; Christopher A Puleo; Brendon J Coventry; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; B Mark Smithers; Eberhard Paul; William G Kraybill; J Gregory McKinnon; He-Jing Wang; Robert Elashoff; Mark B Faries Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alessandro Testori; Gian Luca De Salvo; Maria Cristina Montesco; Giuseppe Trifirò; Simone Mocellin; Giorgio Landi; Giuseppe Macripò; Paolo Carcoforo; Giuseppe Ricotti; Giuseppe Giudice; Franco Picciotto; Davide Donner; Franco Di Filippo; Javier Soteldo; Dario Casara; Mauro Schiavon; Antonella Vecchiato; Sandro Pasquali; Federica Baldini; Giovanni Mazzarol; Carlo Riccardo Rossi Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Serigne N Lo; Jiawen Ma; Richard A Scolyer; Lauren E Haydu; Jonathan R Stretch; Robyn P M Saw; Omgo E Nieweg; Kerwin F Shannon; Andrew J Spillane; Sydney Ch'ng; Graham J Mann; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; John F Thompson; Alexander H R Varey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Qing-Qing Xu; Qing-Jie Li; Liu Chen; Xin-Yi Su; Jing-Xia Song; Juan Du; Lei Chen; Li-Xia Lu Journal: Cancer Cell Int Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 5.722
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