Risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in patients with previous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with the general population, people with a previous melanoma are at increased risk of developing another primary melanoma. Understanding the risk factors associated with multiple primary melanomas can inform patient education and tailored surveillance. OBJECTIVES: To examine the risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in people with a previous melanoma, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase and MEDLINE. Studies that reported a risk estimate or raw frequencies and conducted between 1982 and August 2022 were included. Adjusted risk estimates were prioritized over univariable risk estimates. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to derive pooled estimates. Quality assessment was conducted by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. GRADE was used to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Data from 27 studies involving 413 181 participants were pooled and analysed. Risk factors assessed included age and sex, environmental, lifestyle, phenotypic, genetic and histopathological factors, and there was wide variation in how they were categorized and analysed. Independent risk factors identified from pooled analyses included male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-1.53], increasing age per 10 years (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.24), light skin colour (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70), family history [odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.25-2.56], CDKN2A mutation (OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.70-10.37), a high or moderate naevus count [OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.61-4.30) and OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.07-2.51), respectively], one or more atypical naevi (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.52-5.97), first lesions occurring on the head or neck, lentigo maligna subtype (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.17), other subtype (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27) and inadequate sun protection (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.98-3.50). Based on the GRADE criteria, there was high to very low confidence in the pooled effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identified several consistent, independent risk factors for the development of subsequent primary melanoma. These findings will help stratify the risk of subsequent melanoma, tailor skin-check schedules and inform patient education.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".