MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009250800 · doi:10.1002/jso.21465

Validation of a scoring system to predict non‐sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma

2009· article· en· W2009250800 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ali Cadili, Greg McKinnon, Frances C. Wright, Wedad Hanna, Ethel MacIntosh, Zahra Abhari, Kelly Dabbs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSentinel lymph nodeMelanomaMetastasisDissection (medical)Sentinel nodeSurgeryBiopsyLymph nodeGeneral surgeryRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been widely accepted as the lymph node sampling procedure of choice for melanoma patients. Current standards of practice suggest completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for patients with a positive SLNB result. The rationale for SLNB+/-CLND is for staging and prognosis as well as local control and possibly survival improvement. CLND, however, entails significant morbidity. In addition, most patients (approximately 80%) will have no further melanoma metastases in non-sentinel nodes and these patients may not benefit from the additional dissection. We had previously developed a score (based on patient age and the total size of metastasis within the SLN) that predicted which SLN-positive patients would have a positive CLND. Utilization of this scoring system would spare a significant number of melanoma patients the risks associated with CLND. The purpose of this study was to validate this score using different melanoma populations. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients that had undergone SLNB for melanoma at four different Canadian centers was undertaken. Data from the Calgary Foothills Medical Center, the Winnipeg Health Sciences Center, and the Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center from January 1999 to present was collected. In addition, we identified all patients from April 2007 to present at the Misericordia Hospital in Edmonton for this study. This patient information had not been utilized when we were developing this score. The collected variables included patient age, Breslow thickness, result of SLNB, total size of SLN metastasis, largest size of SLN metastasis, and results of CLND. Logistic regression was used to test the significance of a score system's correlation (based on cutoff age of 55 years and cutoff total SLN metastasis of 5 mm) with the CLND results. We also used logistic regression to test the correlation of cutoff values of total SLN metastasis with non-sentinel lymph node (NSLN) metastasis. RESULTS: Data were collected on 599 patients across the four centers. Breslow thickness significantly correlated with SLN metastasis. The risk score system (based on patient age and total SLN metastasis) was significantly predictive of the CLND result in SLNB-positive patients. However, the age became non-significant on multivariate analysis. Total SLN metastasis emerged as the variable that is most predictive of NSLN metastasis. Patients with total SLN metastasis less than 2 mm had a 3.6% risk of NSLN metastasis, those with SLN metastasis from 2-5 mm had a 12.5% risk of NSLN metastasis, whereas those with total SLN metastasis of 5 mm or greater had a 30% risk of NSLN metastasis. CONCLUSION: Using cutoff values of 2 and 5 mm for total SLN metastasis, prediction of NSLN metastasis can be made in melanoma patients. Patients with less than 2 mm of total SLN metastasis are unlikely (<3.67% likelihood) to harbor NSLN metastasis; these patients may not benefit from additional nodal dissection beyond SLNB.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207