Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37074717›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Improving Selection for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Among Patients With Melanoma.

James R Miller, Serigne N Lo, Mehdi Nosrati, Jonathan R Stretch, Andrew J Spillane, Robyn P M Saw, Kerwin F Shannon, Omgo E Nieweg, Sydney Ch'ng, Kevin B Kim and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

James R MillerCenter for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center and Research Institute, San Francisco.
Serigne N LoMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mehdi NosratiCenter for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center and Research Institute, San Francisco.
Jonathan R StretchMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew J SpillaneMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn P M SawMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kerwin F ShannonMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Omgo E NiewegMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sydney Ch'ngMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kevin B KimCenter for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center and Research Institute, San Francisco.
Stanley P LeongCenter for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center and Research Institute, San Francisco.
John F ThompsonMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mohammed Kashani-SabetCenter for Melanoma Research and Treatment, California Pacific Medical Center and Research Institute, San Francisco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Refining eligibility guidelines may identify more appropriate patients to undergo useful medical procedures. Objective: To improve cost-effectiveness in selecting patients with melanoma for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Design, Setting, and Participants: This hybrid prognostic study/decision analytical model was conducted among patients with melanoma who were eligible for SLNB at 2 melanoma centers from Australia and the US from 2000 to 2014. Participants consisted of 2 cohorts of patients with melanoma undergoing SLNB and a cohort of eligible patients without SLNB. Individualized probabilities of SLNB positivity generated by a patient-centered methodology (PCM) were compared with those generated by conventional multiple logistic regression analysis investigating 12 prognostic factors. Prognostic accuracy was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for each methodology and by matched-pair analyses. Interventions: Triaging appropriate patients to undergo SLNB. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total number of SLNBs performed (giving total cost) vs number of SLNB-positive outcomes (a measure of effectiveness) was evaluated. Improved cost-effectiveness through judicious patient selection was interpreted as increased numbers of SLNB-positive outcomes achieved, decreased numbers of SLNBs performed, or both outcomes simultaneously. Results: Among 7331 patients with melanoma, SLNB outcomes were assessed in 3640 Australian patients (2212 males [60.8%]; 2447 aged >50 years [67.2%]) and 1342 US patients (774 males [57.7%]; 885 aged >50 years [66.0%]); 2349 patients eligible for SLNB who did not undergo the procedure were included in the simulation. PCM-generated probabilities achieved an AUROC of 0.803 in predicting SLNB positivity in the Australian cohort and 0.826 in the US cohort, higher than corresponding AUROCs generated by conventional logistic regression analysis. In simulation, adopting many SLNB-positive probabilities as minimally acceptable patient-selection criteria resulted in fewer procedures performed or increased the expected numbers of positive SLNBs. A minimally acceptable PCM-generated probability of 8.7% elicited the same number of SLNBs as historically performed (3640 SLNBs), with 1066 positive SLNBs (29.3%), constituting an improvement of 287 additional positive SLNBs compared with 779 actual positive SLNBs (36.8% improvement). In contrast, adopting a 23.7% PCM-generated minimum cutoff probability resulted in performing 1825 SLNBs, or 1815 fewer SLNBs than the actual experience (49.9%). It resulted in the same expected number of positive results (779 SLNBs), for a 42.7% positivity rate. Conclusions and Relevance: This prognostic study/decision analytical model found that the PCM approach outperformed conventional multiple logistic regression analysis in predicting which patients would have positive results on SLNB. These findings suggest that systematically producing and exploiting more accurate SLNB-positivity probabilities could improve the selection of patients with melanoma for SLNB compared with using established guidelines, thus improving the cost-effectiveness of the selection process. Eligibility guidelines to undergo SLNB should include a context-tailored minimum cutoff probability.

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsAustraliaHumansMalePrognosisSentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Identifiers

PMID37074717
PMCPMC10116363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.