liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Population-Based Validation of the MIA and MSKCC Tools for Predicting Sentinel Lymph Node Status
Univ Gothenburg, Sweden; Sahlgrens Univ Hosp, Sweden.
Linköping University, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and Oncology. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Regionledningskontoret, Regional Cancer Center.
Skagit Reg Hlth, WA USA.
Univ Sydney, Australia; Univ Sydney, Australia.
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: JAMA Surgery, ISSN 2168-6254, E-ISSN 2168-6262Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Importance Patients with melanoma are selected for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) based on their risk of a positive SLN. To improve selection, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed predictive models, but the utility of these models remains to be tested.Objective To determine the clinical utility of the MIA and MSKCC models.Design, Setting, and Participants This was a population-based comparative effectiveness research study including 10 089 consecutive patients with cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB from the Swedish Melanoma Registry from January 2007 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from May to August 2023.Main Outcomes and Measures, The predicted probability of SLN positivity was calculated using the MSKCC model and a limited MIA model (using mitotic rate as absent/present instead of count/mm(2) and excluding the optional variable lymphovascular invasion) for each patient. The operating characteristics of the models were assessed and compared. The clinical utility of each model was assessed using decision curve analysis and compared with a strategy of performing SLNB on all patients.Results Among 10 089 included patients, the median (IQR) age was 64.0 (52.0-73.0) years, and 5340 (52.9%) were male. The median Breslow thickness was 1.8 mm, and 1802 patients (17.9%) had a positive SLN. Both models were well calibrated across the full range of predicted probabilities and had similar external area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC; MSKCC: 70.8%; 95% CI, 69.5-72.1 and limited MIA: 69.7%; 95% CI, 68.4-71.1). At a risk threshold of 5%, decision curve analysis indicated no added net benefit for either model compared to performing SLNB for all patients. At risk thresholds of 10% or higher, both models added net benefit compared to SLNB for all patients. The greatest benefit was observed in patients with T2 melanomas using a threshold of 10%; in that setting, the use of the nomograms led to a net reduction of 8 avoidable SLNBs per 100 patients for the MSKCC nomogram and 7 per 100 patients for the limited MIA nomogram compared to a strategy of SLNB for all.Conclusions and Relevance This study confirmed the statistical performance of both the MSKCC and limited MIA models in a large, nationally representative data set. However, decision curve analysis demonstrated that using the models only improved selection for SLNB compared to biopsy in all patients when a risk threshold of at least 7% was used, with the greatest benefit seen for T2 melanomas at a threshold of 10%. Care should be taken when using these nomograms to guide selection for SLNB at the lowest thresholds.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC , 2024.
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-200356DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6904ISI: 001141824600005PubMedID: 38198163OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-200356DiVA, id: diva2:1830595
Note

Funding Agencies|Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation

Available from: 2024-01-23 Created: 2024-01-23 Last updated: 2024-01-23

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mikiver, RasmusLyth, Johan
By organisation
Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and OncologyFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesRegional Cancer CenterDivision of Society and HealthForskningsstrategiska enheten
In the same journal
JAMA Surgery
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 64 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf