Development and external validation study of a melanoma risk prediction model incorporating clinically assessed naevi and solar lentigines. (22nd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vuong, K.; Armstrong, B.K.; Drummond, M.; Hopper, J.L.; Barrett, J.H.; Davies, J.R.; Bishop, D.T.; Newton‐Bishop, J.; Aitken, J.F.; Giles, G.G.; Schmid, H.; Jenkins, M.A.; Mann, G.J.; McGeechan, K.; Cust, A.E.
• Is Part Of: British journal of dermatology. Volume 182:Number 5(2020)
• Page Start: 1262
• Page End: 1268
• Publication Date: 2019-09-22
• Subjects: Dermatology -- Periodicals; Skin -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.5
• DOI: 10.1111/bjd.18411
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-0963

Abstract

Summary: 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. Abstract : Linked Comment: Toland. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182 :1089–1090 . Respond to this article Plain language summary available online