Literature DB >> 27276088

Development and External Validation of a Melanoma Risk Prediction Model Based on Self-assessed Risk Factors.

Kylie Vuong1, Bruce K Armstrong2, Elisabete Weiderpass3, Eiliv Lund4, Hans-Olov Adami5, Marit B Veierod6, Jennifer H Barrett7, John R Davies7, D Timothy Bishop7, David C Whiteman8, Catherine M Olsen8, John L Hopper9, Graham J Mann10, Anne E Cust11, Kevin McGeechan12.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Identifying individuals at high risk of melanoma can optimize primary and secondary prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate a risk prediction model for incident first-primary cutaneous melanoma using self-assessed risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used unconditional logistic regression to develop a multivariable risk prediction model. Relative risk estimates from the model were combined with Australian melanoma incidence and competing mortality rates to obtain absolute risk estimates. A risk prediction model was developed using the Australian Melanoma Family Study (629 cases and 535 controls) and externally validated using 4 independent population-based studies: the Western Australia Melanoma Study (511 case-control pairs), Leeds Melanoma Case-Control Study (960 cases and 513 controls), Epigene-QSkin Study (44 544, of which 766 with melanoma), and Swedish Women's Lifestyle and Health Cohort Study (49 259 women, of which 273 had melanoma). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We validated model performance internally and externally by assessing discrimination using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Additionally, using the Swedish Women's Lifestyle and Health Cohort Study, we assessed model calibration and clinical usefulness.
RESULTS: The risk prediction model included hair color, nevus density, first-degree family history of melanoma, previous nonmelanoma skin cancer, and lifetime sunbed use. On internal validation, the AUC was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67-0.73). On external validation, the AUC was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63-0.69) in the Western Australia Melanoma Study, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.70) in the Leeds Melanoma Case-Control Study, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.62-0.66) in the Epigene-QSkin Study, and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.67) in the Swedish Women's Lifestyle and Health Cohort Study. Model calibration showed close agreement between predicted and observed numbers of incident melanomas across all deciles of predicted risk. In the external validation setting, there was higher net benefit when using the risk prediction model to classify individuals as high risk compared with classifying all individuals as high risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The melanoma risk prediction model performs well and may be useful in prevention interventions reliant on a risk assessment using self-assessed risk factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27276088     DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Dermatol        ISSN: 2168-6068            Impact factor:   10.282


  15 in total

1.  A Randomized Trial on the Efficacy of Mastery Learning for Primary Care Provider Melanoma Opportunistic Screening Skills and Practice.

Authors:  June K Robinson; Namita Jain; Ashfaq A Marghoob; William McGaghie; Michael MacLean; Pedram Gerami; Brittney Hultgren; Rob Turrisi; Kimberly Mallett; Gary J Martin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Factors in Early Adolescence Associated With a Mole-Prone Phenotype in Late Adolescence.

Authors:  Haoming Xu; Michael A Marchetti; Stephen W Dusza; Esther Chung; Maira Fonseca; Alon Scope; Alan C Geller; Marilyn Bishop; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Allan C Halpern
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 10.282

3.  Association of Phenotypic Characteristics and UV Radiation Exposure With Risk of Melanoma on Different Body Sites.

Authors:  Reza Ghiasvand; Trude E Robsahm; Adele C Green; Corina S Rueegg; Elisabete Weiderpass; Eiliv Lund; Marit B Veierød
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 10.282

Review 4.  Genome-wide association studies and polygenic risk scores for skin cancer: clinically useful yet?

Authors:  M R Roberts; M M Asgari; A E Toland
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2019-07-07       Impact factor: 9.302

5.  Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to Evaluate Melanoma Prediction Studies.

Authors:  Isabelle Kaiser; Sonja Mathes; Annette B Pfahlberg; Wolfgang Uter; Carola Berking; Markus V Heppt; Theresa Steeb; Katharina Diehl; Olaf Gefeller
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 6.575

6.  Development and external validation study of a melanoma risk prediction model incorporating clinically assessed naevi and solar lentigines.

Authors:  K Vuong; B K Armstrong; M Drummond; J L Hopper; J H Barrett; J R Davies; D T Bishop; J Newton-Bishop; J F Aitken; G G Giles; H Schmid; M A Jenkins; G J Mann; K McGeechan; A E Cust
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2019-09-22       Impact factor: 9.302

7.  Randomized trial of a web-based survivor intervention on melanoma prevention behaviors of first-degree relatives.

Authors:  Deborah J Bowen; Jennifer Hay; Hendrika Meischke; Joni A Mayer; Julie Harris-Wai; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 8.  Skin cancer screening: recommendations for data-driven screening guidelines and a review of the US Preventive Services Task Force controversy.

Authors:  Mariah M Johnson; Sancy A Leachman; Lisa G Aspinwall; Lee D Cranmer; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Vernon K Sondak; Clara E Stemwedel; Susan M Swetter; John Vetto; Tawnya Bowles; Robert P Dellavalle; Larisa J Geskin; Douglas Grossman; Kenneth F Grossmann; Jason E Hawkes; Joanne M Jeter; Caroline C Kim; John M Kirkwood; Aaron R Mangold; Frank Meyskens; Michael E Ming; Kelly C Nelson; Michael Piepkorn; Brian P Pollack; June K Robinson; Arthur J Sober; Shannon Trotter; Suraj S Venna; Sanjiv Agarwala; Rhoda Alani; Bruce Averbook; Anna Bar; Mirna Becevic; Neil Box; William E Carson; Pamela B Cassidy; Suephy C Chen; Emily Y Chu; Darrel L Ellis; Laura K Ferris; David E Fisher; Kari Kendra; David H Lawson; Philip D Leming; Kim A Margolin; Svetomir Markovic; Mary C Martini; Debbie Miller; Debjani Sahni; William H Sharfman; Jennifer Stein; Alexander J Stratigos; Ahmad Tarhini; Matthew H Taylor; Oliver J Wisco; Michael K Wong
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2017-03-01

9.  The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study randomised controlled trial: statistical analysis plan.

Authors:  Serigne N Lo; Amelia K Smit; David Espinoza; Anne E Cust
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Expression of the Circadian Clock Gene BMAL1 Positively Correlates With Antitumor Immunity and Patient Survival in Metastatic Melanoma.

Authors:  Leonardo Vinícius Monteiro de Assis; Gabriela Sarti Kinker; Maria Nathália Moraes; Regina P Markus; Pedro Augusto Fernandes; Ana Maria de Lauro Castrucci
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.