Improved Risk Prediction Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity in Patients With Melanoma: The Melanoma Institute Australia Nomogram

Abstract

PURPOSE For patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, the risk of sentinel node (SN) metastasis varies according to several clinicopathologic parameters. Patient selection for SN biopsy can be assisted by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and ASCO/Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guidelines and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) online nomogram. We sought to develop an improved online risk calculator using alternative clinicopathologic parameters to more accurately predict SN positivity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from 3,477 patients with melanoma who underwent SN biopsy at Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) were analyzed. A new nomogram was developed by replacing body site and Clark level from the MSKCC model with mitotic rate, melanoma subtype, and lymphovascular invasion. The predictive performance of the new nomogram was externally validated using data from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 3,496). RESULTS The MSKCC model receiver operating characteristic curve had a predictive accuracy of 67.7% (95% CI, 65.3% to 70.0%). The MIA model had a predictive accuracy of 73.9% (95% CI, 71.9% to 75.9%), a 9.2% increase in accuracy over the MSKCC model ( P < .001). Among the 2,748 SN-negative patients, SN biopsy would not have been offered to 22.1%, 13.4%, and 12.4% based on the MIA model, the MSKCC model, and NCCN or ASCO/SSO criteria, respectively. External validation generated a C-statistic of 75.0% (95% CI, 73.2% to 76.7%). CONCLUSION A robust nomogram was developed that more accurately estimates the risk of SN positivity in patients with melanoma than currently available methods. The model only requires the input of 6 widely available clinicopathologic parameters. Importantly, the number of patients undergoing unnecessary SN biopsy would be significantly reduced compared with use of the MSKCC nomogram or the NCCN or ASCO/SSO guidelines, without losing sensitivity. An online calculator is available at www.melanomarisk.org.au .

A nomogram for screening esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on environmental risk factors in a high-incidence area of China: a population-based case-control study

“…A nomogram for predicting the risk of mixed premalignant lesions containing reflux esophagitis, inflammatory lesions, dysplasia, and so on, showed an AUC of 0.749 (0.711-0.788) based on information on age, sex, education, occupation, income, labor intensity and mining exposure collected from an esophageal endoscopic screening project in China [12], but the etiology of ESCC is substantially different from esophagitis and mixed premalignant lesions [30,31]. As a risk prediction method, nomogram has shown promising value in clinical prognosis prediction [32,33]. Here, to our best knowledge, we first established an easy-to-use prediction tool via nomogram to optimize the preselection of candidate high-risk population for ESCC endoscopic screening programs.…”

A Nomogram Based on a Multiparametric Ultrasound Radiomics Model for Discrimination Between Malignant and Benign Prostate Lesions

“…Lately, the field of clinical medicine has widely applied the nomogram figure forecast model. A lot of researches associated with this model have been published in the clinical journals with high impacts ( 41 , 42 ). The nomogram figure forecast model represents a variety of disease risk elements and predicts the prognosis of patients by using risk score, which is more distinct, simple, and easy to understand.…”

Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects

“…The AJCC melanoma staging and substaging criteria are built upon robust collection of patient clinicopathologic features and have been refined over decades using long-term outcomes data for more than 45,000 patients with melanoma (1). As such, this is the standard to which prognostic biomarkers must be measured, and full transparency of clinical characteristics and AJCC substages of patients in future studies will be necessary to meaningfully compare prognostic outcomes to AJCC staging (88,89). Because of these limitations, a recent consensus group statement from the melanoma prevention working group members recommended against routine use of prognostic GEPs, including the DecisionDx, outside of clinical trials, without thorough discussion of testing limitations with the patient, or outside of multidisciplinary conference recommendations (5).…”