Literature DB >> 30456681

Validation of a Nomogram for Non-sentinel Node Positivity in Melanoma Patients, and Its Clinical Implications: A Brazilian-Dutch Study.

Eduardo Bertolli1,2, Viola Franke3, Vinicius Fernando Calsavara4, Mariana Petaccia de Macedo5, Clovis Antonio Lopes Pinto5, Winan J van Houdt3, Michel W J M Wouters3, Joao Pedreira Duprat Neto6, Alexander C J van Akkooi3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-sentinel node (NSN) positivity impacts the prognosis of melanoma patients; however, the benefits of completion lymph node dissection in patients with positive sentinel nodes (SNs) are limited.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to present a predictive nomogram for NSN positivity in melanoma patients with a positive SN biopsy.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis from patients who underwent SN biopsy in a Brazilian institution from 2000 to 2015 was used for the construction and internal validation of the nomogram. This nomogram was then externally validated in a cohort of Dutch patients.
RESULTS: The Brazilian cohort comprised 1213 patients, with a mean follow-up of 5.11 years. Breslow thickness (odds ratio [OR] 1.170, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.043-1.314]; p = 0.008), number of positive SNs (OR 1.092, 95% CI 1.034-1.153; p = 0.001), and largest diameter of the metastatic deposit (OR 3.217, 95% CI 1.551-6.674; p = 0.002) were statistically significant for NSN positivity. Internal validation was performed using a bootstrapping technique. A good performance was observed (Brier score 0.097) and an excellent power of discrimination was achieved (area under the curve [AUC] 0.822). The nomogram was then applied to the Dutch cohort, and its overall performance (Brier score 0.085), calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test; p = 0.198), and discriminatory power (AUC 0.752, 95% CI 0.615-0.890) were all adequate.
CONCLUSIONS: We presented a nomogram for assessing NSN probability that should not only be used for surgical considerations but also for risk stratification and clinical decisions. Internal validation has shown that this is an adequate model, while external validation increases the model's reliability and suggests that it can be globally incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30456681     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-7038-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  9 in total

1.  The Role of Clinical Prediction Tools to Risk Stratify Patients with Melanoma After a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy.

Authors:  Michael E Egger
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Evidence and implementation gaps in management of sentinel node-positive melanoma in the United States.

Authors:  Kristy K Broman; Joshua Richman; Smita Bhatia
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.348

3.  Sentinel Node Status is the Most Important Prognostic Information for Clinical Stage IIB and IIC Melanoma Patients.

Authors:  Marcus Vitor Nunes Lindote; Marcus Rodrigo Monteiro; Eduardo Doria Filho; Isabela Bartelli Fonseca; Clovis Antonio Lopes Pinto; Andrea Schiavinato Jafelicci; Matheus de Melo Lôbo; Vinicius Fernando Calsavara; Eduardo Bertolli; João Pedreira Duprat Neto
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Surgeon decision-making for management of positive sentinel lymph nodes in the post-Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II era: A survey study.

Authors:  Jane Yuet Ching Hui; Erin Burke; Kristy K Broman; Schelomo Marmor; Eric Jensen; Todd M Tuttle; Jonathan S Zager
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.454

5.  Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma Patients with Reasons for Exclusion from MSLT-II: Multi-Institutional Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Authors:  Kristy K Broman; Tasha M Hughes; Lesly A Dossett; James Sun; Michael J Carr; Dennis A Kirichenko; Avinash Sharma; Edmund K Bartlett; Amanda Ag Nijhuis; John F Thompson; Tina J Hieken; Lisa Kottschade; Jennifer Downs; David E Gyorki; Emma Stahlie; Alexander van Akkooi; David W Ollila; Jill Frank; Yun Song; Giorgos Karakousis; Marc Moncrieff; Jenny Nobes; John Vetto; Dale Han; Jeffrey Farma; Jeremiah L Deneve; Martin D Fleming; Matthew Perez; Kirsten Baecher; Michael Lowe; Roger Olofsson Bagge; Jan Mattsson; Ann Y Lee; Russell S Berman; Harvey Chai; Hidde M Kroon; Roland M Teras; Juri Teras; Norma E Farrow; Georgia M Beasley; Jane Yc Hui; Lukas Been; Schelto Kruijff; David Boulware; Amod A Sarnaik; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2020-12-13       Impact factor: 6.532

Review 6.  The Role and Necessity of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Invasive Melanoma.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Nakamura
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-10-22

Review 7.  An evidence-based approach to positive sentinel node disease: should we ever do a completion node dissection?

Authors:  Jennifer S Downs; David E Gyorki
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2019-10-18

8.  Clinicopathologic models predicting non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in cutaneous melanoma patients: Are they useful for patients with a single positive sentinel node?

Authors:  Barbara Rentroia-Pacheco; Félicia J Tjien-Fooh; Enrica Quattrocchi; Ajdin Kobic; Renske Wever; Domenico Bellomo; Alexander Meves; Tina J Hieken
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 2.885

9.  How does the mitotic index impact patients with T1 melanoma? Comparison between the 7th and 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system.

Authors:  Amanda Zorzetto Antonialli; Eduardo Bertolli; Mariana Petaccia de Macedo; Clovis Antonio Lopes Pinto; Vinicius Fernando Calsavara; João Pedreira Duprat Neto
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 1.896

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.