Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31378928›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2020

Development and external validation study of a melanoma risk prediction model incorporating clinically assessed naevi and solar lentigines.

K Vuong, B K Armstrong, M Drummond, J L Hopper, J H Barrett, J R Davies, D T Bishop, J Newton-Bishop, J F Aitken, G G Giles and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07765303 (Skin Pigment Type, Phototype and Photodamage Determination Using Image Analyses Powered by Artificial Intelligence - SPAI Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07765303 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Skin Pigment Type, Phototype and Photodamage Determination Using Image Analyses Powered by Artificial Intelligence - SPAI Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorRegion SkaneRan2025 to 2028Enrolled1,500ConditionsSkin Ageing, SkinArmsSkin imaging and skin characteristic assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Identifying high-risk melanoma patients: The importance of acquiring a detailed family history.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Artificial intelligence and skin cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

K VuongSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2671-9473
B K ArmstrongCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
M DrummondCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
J H BarrettLeeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds University, Leeds, U.K.
J R DaviesLeeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds University, Leeds, U.K.
D T BishopLeeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds University, Leeds, U.K.
J Newton-BishopLeeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds University, Leeds, U.K.
J F AitkenViertel Centre for Research in Cancer Control, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
G G GilesCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
H SchmidCentre for Cancer Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
M A JenkinsCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
G J MannCentre for Cancer Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
K McGeechanSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
A E CustCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5331-6370
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Leeds · GBThe University of Melbourne · AUCancer Council Queensland · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Genetic Epidermiology of MelanomaR01CA083115 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BISHOP, DAVID TIMOTHY, ELDER, DAVID ERIC · 2001 to 2017
$13.0M
Cancer Research UK 10589Cancer Research UK 11963Cancer Research UK 19167Cancer Research UK C588/A10589Cancer Research UK C588/A19167Cancer Research UK C588/A4994Cancer Research UK C8216/A6129NCI NIH HHS R01 CA083115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMelanoma risk prediction models could be useful for matching preventive interventions to patients' risk.

objectivesTo develop and validate a model for incident first-primary cutaneous melanoma using clinically assessed risk factors.

methodsWe 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

LentigoMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsAdolescentAustraliaCase-Control StudiesHumansRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID31378928
PMCPMC6997040
OpenAlexW2965553652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.