Wei Li1, Yang Xiao1, Xuewen Xu2, Yange Zhang3. 1. Department of Plastic and Burns Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Plastic and Burns Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. xxw_0826@163.com. 3. Department of Plastic and Burns Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. zhangyange7801@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma and distant organ metastasis has varying outcomes. Considering all prognostic indicators in a prediction model might assist in selecting cases who could benefit from a personalized therapy strategy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model for patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: A total of 1535 cases diagnosed with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (stage IV) were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients were randomly divided into the training (n = 1023) and validation (n = 512) cohorts. A prognostic nomogram was established based predominantly on results from the competing-risk regression model for predicting cancer-specific death (CSD). The area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analyses (DCAs) were used to evaluate the nomogram. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the clinical characteristics between the training and validation cohorts. In the training cohort, patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related predictors of CSD for metastatic melanoma included age, sex, race, marital status, insurance, American Joint Committee on Cancer T and N stage, number of metastatic organs, surgical treatment, and chemotherapy. All these factors were used for nomogram construction. The time-dependent AUC values of the training and validation cohorts suggested a favorable performance and discrimination of the nomogram. The 6-, 12-, and 18-month AUC values were 0.706, 0.700, and 0.706 in the training cohort, and 0.702, 0.670, and 0.656 in the validation cohort, respectively. The calibration curves for the probability of death at 6, 12, and 18 months showed acceptable agreement between the values predicted by the nomogram and the observed outcomes in both cohorts. DCA curves showed good positive net benefits in the prognostic model among most of the threshold probabilities at different time points (death at 6, 12, and 18 months). Based on the total nomogram scores of each case, all patients were divided into the low-risk (n = 511), intermediate-risk (n = 512), and high-risk (n = 512) groups, and the risk classification could identify cases with a high risk of death in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: A predictive nomogram and a corresponding risk classification system for CSD in patients with metastatic melanoma were developed in this study, which may assist in patient counseling and in guiding clinical decision making for cases with metastatic melanoma.
BACKGROUND:Cutaneous melanoma and distant organ metastasis has varying outcomes. Considering all prognostic indicators in a prediction model might assist in selecting cases who could benefit from a personalized therapy strategy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model for patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: A total of 1535 cases diagnosed with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (stage IV) were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients were randomly divided into the training (n = 1023) and validation (n = 512) cohorts. A prognostic nomogram was established based predominantly on results from the competing-risk regression model for predicting cancer-specific death (CSD). The area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analyses (DCAs) were used to evaluate the nomogram. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the clinical characteristics between the training and validation cohorts. In the training cohort, patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related predictors of CSD for metastatic melanoma included age, sex, race, marital status, insurance, American Joint Committee on Cancer T and N stage, number of metastatic organs, surgical treatment, and chemotherapy. All these factors were used for nomogram construction. The time-dependent AUC values of the training and validation cohorts suggested a favorable performance and discrimination of the nomogram. The 6-, 12-, and 18-month AUC values were 0.706, 0.700, and 0.706 in the training cohort, and 0.702, 0.670, and 0.656 in the validation cohort, respectively. The calibration curves for the probability of death at 6, 12, and 18 months showed acceptable agreement between the values predicted by the nomogram and the observed outcomes in both cohorts. DCA curves showed good positive net benefits in the prognostic model among most of the threshold probabilities at different time points (death at 6, 12, and 18 months). Based on the total nomogram scores of each case, all patients were divided into the low-risk (n = 511), intermediate-risk (n = 512), and high-risk (n = 512) groups, and the risk classification could identify cases with a high risk of death in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: A predictive nomogram and a corresponding risk classification system for CSD in patients with metastatic melanoma were developed in this study, which may assist in patient counseling and in guiding clinical decision making for cases with metastatic melanoma.
Authors: Laura J Gardner; Morgan Ward; Robert H I Andtbacka; Kenneth M Boucher; Glen M Bowen; Tawnya L Bowles; Adam L Cohen; Kenneth Grossmann; Ying J Hitchcock; Sheri L Holmen; John Hyngstrom; Hung Khong; Martin McMahon; Marcus M Monroe; Carolyn B Ross; Gita Suneja; David Wada; Douglas Grossman Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Jan Viehof; Elisabeth Livingstone; Elena Loscha; Paul Stockhammer; Agnes Bankfalvi; Till Plönes; Khaled Mardanzai; Lisa Zimmer; Antje Sucker; Dirk Schadendorf; Balazs Hegedüs; Clemens Aigner Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Alan C Geller; Richard W Clapp; Arthur J Sober; Lou Gonsalves; Lloyd Mueller; Cindy L Christiansen; Waqas Shaikh; Donald R Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark B Faries; Nicola Mozzillo; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; John F Thompson; Mark C Kelley; Ronald C DeConti; Jeffrey E Lee; James F Huth; Jeffrey Wagner; Angus Dalgleish; Daniel Pertschuk; Christopher Nardo; Stacey Stern; Robert Elashoff; Guy Gammon; Donald L Morton Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Raymond Barnhill; Pieter-Jan van Dam; Peter Vermeulen; Gabriel Champenois; André Nicolas; Robert V Rawson; James S Wilmott; John F Thompson; Georgina V Long; Nathalie Cassoux; Sergio Roman-Roman; Klaus J Busam; Richard A Scolyer; Alexander J Lazar; Claire Lugassy Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2020-04-18