K Vuong1,2, B K Armstrong2, M Drummond2, J L Hopper3, J H Barrett4, J R Davies4, D T Bishop4, J Newton-Bishop4, J F Aitken5, G G Giles3,6, H Schmid7, M A Jenkins3, G J Mann7,8, K McGeechan9, A E Cust2,8. 1. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 2. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds University, Leeds, U.K. 5. Viertel Centre for Research in Cancer Control, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Centre for Cancer Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 8. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 9. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma risk prediction models could be useful for matching preventive interventions to patients' risk. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a model for incident first-primary cutaneous melanoma using clinically assessed risk factors. METHODS: We used unconditional logistic regression with backward selection from the Australian Melanoma Family Study (461 cases and 329 controls) in which age, sex and city of recruitment were kept in each step, and we externally validated it using the Leeds Melanoma Case-Control Study (960 cases and 513 controls). Candidate predictors included clinically assessed whole-body naevi and solar lentigines, and self-assessed pigmentation phenotype, sun exposure, family history and history of keratinocyte cancer. We evaluated the predictive strength and discrimination of the model risk factors using odds per age- and sex-adjusted SD (OPERA) and the area under curve (AUC), and calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: The final model included the number of naevi ≥ 2 mm in diameter on the whole body, solar lentigines on the upper back (a six-level scale), hair colour at age 18 years and personal history of keratinocyte cancer. Naevi was the strongest risk factor; the OPERA was 3·51 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2·71-4·54] in the Australian study and 2·56 (95% CI 2·23-2·95) in the Leeds study. The AUC was 0·79 (95% CI 0·76-0·83) in the Australian study and 0·73 (95% CI 0·70-0·75) in the Leeds study. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test P-value was 0·30 in the Australian study and < 0·001 in the Leeds study. CONCLUSIONS: This model had good discrimination and could be used by clinicians to stratify patients by melanoma risk for the targeting of preventive interventions. What's already known about this topic? Melanoma risk prediction models may be useful in prevention by tailoring interventions to personalized risk levels. For reasons of feasibility, time and cost many melanoma prediction models use self-assessed risk factors. However, individuals tend to underestimate their naevus numbers. What does this study add? We present a melanoma risk prediction model, which includes clinically-assessed whole-body naevi and solar lentigines, and self-assessed risk factors including pigmentation phenotype and history of keratinocyte cancer. This model performs well on discrimination, the model's ability to distinguish between individuals with and without melanoma, and may assist clinicians to stratify patients by melanoma risk for targeted preventive interventions.
BACKGROUND:Melanoma risk prediction models could be useful for matching preventive interventions to patients' risk. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a model for incident first-primary cutaneous melanoma using clinically assessed risk factors. METHODS: We used unconditional logistic regression with backward selection from the Australian Melanoma Family Study (461 cases and 329 controls) in which age, sex and city of recruitment were kept in each step, and we externally validated it using the Leeds Melanoma Case-Control Study (960 cases and 513 controls). Candidate predictors included clinically assessed whole-body naevi and solar lentigines, and self-assessed pigmentation phenotype, sun exposure, family history and history of keratinocyte cancer. We evaluated the predictive strength and discrimination of the model risk factors using odds per age- and sex-adjusted SD (OPERA) and the area under curve (AUC), and calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: The final model included the number of naevi ≥ 2 mm in diameter on the whole body, solar lentigines on the upper back (a six-level scale), hair colour at age 18 years and personal history of keratinocyte cancer. Naevi was the strongest risk factor; the OPERA was 3·51 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2·71-4·54] in the Australian study and 2·56 (95% CI 2·23-2·95) in the Leeds study. The AUC was 0·79 (95% CI 0·76-0·83) in the Australian study and 0·73 (95% CI 0·70-0·75) in the Leeds study. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test P-value was 0·30 in the Australian study and < 0·001 in the Leeds study. CONCLUSIONS: This model had good discrimination and could be used by clinicians to stratify patients by melanoma risk for the targeting of preventive interventions. What's already known about this topic? Melanoma risk prediction models may be useful in prevention by tailoring interventions to personalized risk levels. For reasons of feasibility, time and cost many melanoma prediction models use self-assessed risk factors. However, individuals tend to underestimate their naevus numbers. What does this study add? We present a melanoma risk prediction model, which includes clinically-assessed whole-body naevi and solar lentigines, and self-assessed risk factors including pigmentation phenotype and history of keratinocyte cancer. This model performs well on discrimination, the model's ability to distinguish between individuals with and without melanoma, and may assist clinicians to stratify patients by melanoma risk for targeted preventive interventions.
Authors: Sara Gandini; Francesco Sera; Maria Sofia Cattaruzza; Paolo Pasquini; Orietta Picconi; Peter Boyle; Carmelo Francesco Melchi Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sara Gandini; Francesco Sera; Maria Sofia Cattaruzza; Paolo Pasquini; Damiano Abeni; Peter Boyle; Carmelo Francesco Melchi Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Catherine M Olsen; Nirmala Pandeya; Bridie S Thompson; Jean Claude Dusingize; Penelope M Webb; Adele C Green; Rachel E Neale; David C Whiteman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Catherine M Olsen; Rachel E Neale; Adèle C Green; Penelope M Webb; David C Whiteman Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Anne E Cust; Chris Goumas; Elizabeth A Holland; Chantelle Agha-Hamilton; Joanne F Aitken; Bruce K Armstrong; Graham G Giles; Richard F Kefford; Helen Schmid; John L Hopper; Graham J Mann; Mark A Jenkins Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anne E Cust; Helen Schmid; Judith A Maskiell; Jodie Jetann; Megan Ferguson; Elizabeth A Holland; Chantelle Agha-Hamilton; Mark A Jenkins; John Kelly; Richard F Kefford; Graham G Giles; Bruce K Armstrong; Joanne F Aitken; John L Hopper; Graham J Mann Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kylie Vuong; Bruce K Armstrong; Elisabete Weiderpass; Eiliv Lund; Hans-Olov Adami; Marit B Veierod; Jennifer H Barrett; John R Davies; D Timothy Bishop; David C Whiteman; Catherine M Olsen; John L Hopper; Graham J Mann; Anne E Cust; Kevin McGeechan Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Anne E Cust; Martin Drummond; Peter A Kanetsky; Alisa M Goldstein; Jennifer H Barrett; Stuart MacGregor; Matthew H Law; Mark M Iles; Minh Bui; John L Hopper; Myriam Brossard; Florence Demenais; John C Taylor; Clive Hoggart; Kevin M Brown; Maria Teresa Landi; Julia A Newton-Bishop; Graham J Mann; D Timothy Bishop Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Andrew Bakshi; Mabel Yan; Moeen Riaz; Galina Polekhina; Suzanne G Orchard; Jane Tiller; Rory Wolfe; Amit Joshi; Yin Cao; Aideen M McInerney-Leo; Tatiane Yanes; Monika Janda; H Peter Soyer; Anne E Cust; Matthew H Law; Peter Gibbs; Catriona McLean; Andrew T Chan; John J McNeil; Victoria J Mar; Paul Lacaze Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Isabelle Kaiser; Katharina Diehl; Markus V Heppt; Sonja Mathes; Annette B Pfahlberg; Theresa Steeb; Wolfgang Uter; Olaf Gefeller Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-01-26
Authors: Julia Steinberg; Mark M Iles; Jin Yee Lee; Xiaochuan Wang; Matthew H Law; Amelia K Smit; Tu Nguyen-Dumont; Graham G Giles; Melissa C Southey; Roger L Milne; Graham J Mann; D Timothy Bishop; Robert J MacInnis; Anne E Cust Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 11.113
Authors: Isabelle Kaiser; Annette B Pfahlberg; Wolfgang Uter; Markus V Heppt; Marit B Veierød; Olaf Gefeller Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 3.390