Literature DB >> 31378928

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

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.   

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.
© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31378928      PMCID: PMC6997040          DOI: 10.1111/bjd.18411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Dermatol        ISSN: 0007-0963            Impact factor:   9.302


  28 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. Sun exposure.

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

Review 2.  Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: I. Common and atypical naevi.

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

3.  Accuracy of case-reported family history of melanoma in Queensland, Australia.

Authors:  J F Aitken; P Youl; A Green; R MacLennan; N G Martin
Journal:  Melanoma Res       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.599

4.  Risk Stratification for Melanoma: Models Derived and Validated in a Purpose-Designed Prospective Cohort.

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

5.  Independent validation of six melanoma risk prediction models.

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

6.  MC1R genotypes and risk of melanoma before age 40 years: a population-based case-control-family study.

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

7.  Population-based, case-control-family design to investigate genetic and environmental influences on melanoma risk: Australian Melanoma Family Study.

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

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

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

Review 9.  Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.

Authors:  Gary S Collins; Johannes B Reitsma; Douglas G Altman; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-07

10.  Assessing the Incremental Contribution of Common Genomic Variants to Melanoma Risk Prediction in Two Population-Based Studies.

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

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Genomic Risk Score for Melanoma in a Prospective Study of Older Individuals.

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

3.  Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement.

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

4.  Independent evaluation of melanoma polygenic risk scores in UK and Australian prospective cohorts.

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

5.  Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation.

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.