ArticleThe Journal of investigative dermatology2015
Predicting the Risk of a Second Basal Cell Carcinoma.
Article in The Journal of investigative dermatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Predicting skin cancer risk from facial images with an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) based approach: a proof-of-concept study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Does the histopathological subtype of primary basal cell carcinoma predict the subtype of secondary tumours? What role do genetic mutations play?Skin health and disease · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Predicting keratinocyte carcinoma in patients with actinic keratosis: development and internal validation of a multivariable risk-prediction model.The British journal of dermatology · 2020Article
- Developing a risk prediction model for keratinocyte carcinoma in patients with actinic keratosis.The British journal of dermatology · 2020Article
- Healthcare utilization and management of actinic keratosis in primary and secondary care: a complementary database analysis.The British journal of dermatology · 2019Article
- Non-genetic and genetic predictors of a superficial first basal cell carcinoma.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2019Article
- Development of Multiple-Lesion Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Skin: A Comprehensive Review.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2019Review
- Histopathological and patient-related characteristics of basal cell carcinomas of the head and neck influencing therapeutic management.Dermatology reports · 2018Article
- Genotypic and Phenotypic Features of BAP1 Cancer Syndrome: A Report of 8 New Families and Review of Cases in the Literature.JAMA dermatology · 2017Review
- November 2015 Snapshot Dx Quiz: Linking Science to Patient Care.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2015Article
- Comparison of Socio-demographic Characteristics, Tumour Features, and Surgical Treatment Outcomes in Phenotypic Variants of Basal Cell Carcinoma.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A third of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) patients will develop subsequent BCCs. We aimed to develop a simple model to predict the absolute risk of a second BCC. We observed 14,628 participants of Northern European ancestry from a prospective population-based cohort study. BCCs were identified using a linkage with the Dutch Pathology Registry (Pathological Anatomy National Automated Archive). Predictors for a second BCC included 13 phenotypic, lifestyle, and tumor-specific characteristics. The prediction model was based on the Fine and Gray regression model to account for the competing risk of death from other causes. Among 1,077 participants with at least one BCC, 293 developed a second BCC at a median of 3 years. Several well-known risk factors for a first BCC were not prognostic for a second BCC, whereas having more than one initial BCC was the strongest predictor. Discriminative ability at 3 years was reasonable (bootstrap validated c-index=0.65). Three groups were created, with 7, 12, and 28% risk of a second BCC within 3 years. We conclude that a combination of readily available clinical characteristics can reasonably identify patients at high risk of a second BCC. External validation and extension with stronger predictors is desirable to further improve risk prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.