A E Cust1,2, C Badcock1, J Smith1, N E Thomas3,4, L E Haydu5, B K Armstrong1, M H Law6, J F Thompson2, P A Kanetsky7, C B Begg4, Y Shi8,9, A Kricker1, I Orlow10, A Sharma10, S Yoo10, S F Leong10, M Berwick8, D W Ollila3,11, S Lo2. 1. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 2. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, U.S.A. 4. Department of Dermatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, U.S.A. 5. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, U.S.A. 6. Statistical Genetics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 7. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, U.S.A. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A. 9. Department of Population Health Sciences, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, U.S.A. 10. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, U.S.A. 11. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for follow-up of patients with melanoma are based on limited evidence. OBJECTIVES: To guide skin surveillance, we developed a risk prediction model for subsequent primary melanomas, using demographic, phenotypical, histopathological, sun exposure and genomic risk factors. METHODS: Using Cox regression frailty models, we analysed data for 2613 primary melanomas from 1266 patients recruited to the population-based Genes, Environment and Melanoma study in New South Wales, Australia, with a median of 14 years' follow-up via the cancer registry. Discrimination and calibration were assessed. RESULTS: The median time to diagnosis of a subsequent primary melanoma decreased with each new primary melanoma. The final model included 12 risk factors. Harrell's C-statistic was 0·73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·68-0·77], 0·65 (95% CI 0·62-0·68) and 0·65 (95% CI 0·61-0·69) for predicting second, third and fourth primary melanomas, respectively. The risk of a subsequent primary melanoma was 4·75 times higher (95% CI 3·87-5·82) for the highest vs. the lowest quintile of the risk score. The mean absolute risk of a subsequent primary melanoma within 5 years was 8·0 ± SD 4.1% after the first primary melanoma, and 46·8 ± 15·0% after the second, but varied substantially by risk score. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing a subsequent primary melanoma varies considerably between individuals and is particularly high for those with two or more primary melanomas. The risk prediction model and its associated nomograms enable estimation of the absolute risk of subsequent primary melanoma, on the basis of on an individual's risk factors, and can be used to tailor surveillance intensity, communicate risk and provide patient education. What's already known about this topic? Current guidelines for the frequency and length of follow-up to detect new primary melanomas in patients with one or more previous primary melanomas are based on limited evidence. People with one or more primary melanomas have, on average, a higher risk of developing another primary invasive melanoma, compared with the general population, but an accurate way of estimating individual risk is needed. What does this study add? We provide a comprehensive risk prediction model for subsequent primary melanomas, using data from 1266 participants with melanoma (2613 primary melanomas), over a median 14 years' follow-up. The model includes 12 risk factors comprising demographic, phenotypical, histopathological and genomic factors, and sun exposure. It enables estimation of the absolute risk of subsequent primary melanomas, and can be used to tailor surveillance intensity, communicate individual risk and provide patient education.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for follow-up of patients with melanoma are based on limited evidence. OBJECTIVES: To guide skin surveillance, we developed a risk prediction model for subsequent primary melanomas, using demographic, phenotypical, histopathological, sun exposure and genomic risk factors. METHODS: Using Cox regression frailty models, we analysed data for 2613 primary melanomas from 1266 patients recruited to the population-based Genes, Environment and Melanoma study in New South Wales, Australia, with a median of 14 years' follow-up via the cancer registry. Discrimination and calibration were assessed. RESULTS: The median time to diagnosis of a subsequent primary melanoma decreased with each new primary melanoma. The final model included 12 risk factors. Harrell's C-statistic was 0·73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·68-0·77], 0·65 (95% CI 0·62-0·68) and 0·65 (95% CI 0·61-0·69) for predicting second, third and fourth primary melanomas, respectively. The risk of a subsequent primary melanoma was 4·75 times higher (95% CI 3·87-5·82) for the highest vs. the lowest quintile of the risk score. The mean absolute risk of a subsequent primary melanoma within 5 years was 8·0 ± SD 4.1% after the first primary melanoma, and 46·8 ± 15·0% after the second, but varied substantially by risk score. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing a subsequent primary melanoma varies considerably between individuals and is particularly high for those with two or more primary melanomas. The risk prediction model and its associated nomograms enable estimation of the absolute risk of subsequent primary melanoma, on the basis of on an individual's risk factors, and can be used to tailor surveillance intensity, communicate risk and provide patient education. What's already known about this topic? Current guidelines for the frequency and length of follow-up to detect new primary melanomas in patients with one or more previous primary melanomas are based on limited evidence. People with one or more primary melanomas have, on average, a higher risk of developing another primary invasive melanoma, compared with the general population, but an accurate way of estimating individual risk is needed. What does this study add? We provide a comprehensive risk prediction model for subsequent primary melanomas, using data from 1266 participants with melanoma (2613 primary melanomas), over a median 14 years' follow-up. The model includes 12 risk factors comprising demographic, phenotypical, histopathological and genomic factors, and sun exposure. It enables estimation of the absolute risk of subsequent primary melanomas, and can be used to tailor surveillance intensity, communicate individual risk and provide patient education.
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: Victor Siskind; Maria Celia B Hughes; Jane M Palmer; Judith M Symmons; Joanne F Aitken; Nicholas G Martin; Nicholas K Hayward; David C Whiteman Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: R J T van der Leest; S C Flohil; L R Arends; E de Vries; T Nijsten Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Wei-Yin Lim; Robin M Turner; Rachael L Morton; Marisa C Jenkins; Les Irwig; Angela C Webster; Mbathio Dieng; Robyn P M Saw; Pascale Guitera; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Katy J L Bell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Samantha Damude; Josette E H M Hoekstra-Weebers; Anne Brecht Francken; Sylvia Ter Meulen; Esther Bastiaannet; Harald J Hoekstra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Deonna M Ackermann; Amelia K Smit; Monika Janda; Cathelijne H van Kemenade; Mbathio Dieng; Rachael L Morton; Robin M Turner; Anne E Cust; Les Irwig; Jolyn K Hersch; Pascale Guitera; H Peter Soyer; Victoria Mar; Robyn P M Saw; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Dorothy Drabarek; David Espinoza; Jon Emery; Peter Murchie; John F Thompson; Richard A Scolyer; Anthony Azzi; Alister Lilleyman; Katy J L Bell Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.279