Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Risk prediction models may refine individualized selection for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in melanoma.
Objective: To evaluate the statistical accuracy and clinical utility of nomograms by the Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and University of Colorado in a Southern Arizona population.
Methods: In this prognostic validation, statistical accuracy was assessed through discrimination, measured with receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots. Clinical utility was evaluated via decision curve analysis to determine the net benefit and number of net avoidable interventions achieved with nomogram use.
Results: Among 712 melanoma cases included, model discrimination was highest for the MIA nomogram (C-statistic = 0.753; 95% confidence interval = 0.694-0.812), followed by MSKCC (0.729[0.671-0.787]), and University of Colorado (0.601[0.405-0.793]). The MIA and MSKCC nomograms were well-calibrated across clinically relevant risk thresholds. All nomograms achieved a net benefit and net reduction in avoidable SLNBs for risk thresholds ≥5%. There was minimal to no reduction in unnecessary interventions at age extremes (<50 and ≥ 80 years old) for specific risk strata and nomograms.
Limitations: This a 5-year retrospective study.
Conclusions: These nomograms can be used to support SLNB decision-making in this population but necessitate caution in patients at age extremes when used to reduce avoidable interventions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12269628 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdin.2025.04.012 | DOI Listing |