ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2026
An extension of the validation cohort of the Dutch Early-Stage Melanoma (D-ESMEL) study for stage-specific analyses.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a high need for accurate prognostic models among stage II melanoma to determine who may benefit from (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy. The Dutch Early- Stage Melanoma (D-ESMEL) study was designed to identify new prognostic features in a population-based sample of stage I/II melanoma patients in addition to American Joint Committee of Cancer (AJCC) staging. The validation cohort of the D-ESMEL study employs a nested case-control design. Initially, controls were randomly sampled to develop prognostic that included both known and new prognostic factors to assess the additive value of new prognostic factors. As a consequence, most controls had a very thin melanoma (<1.0 mm) while most cases had a thicker melanoma (>2.0 mm). This resulted in insufficient variability and high weights for stage II controls when applying weighted analyses in absolute risk prediction models. Therefore, randomly sampled controls were re-matched on AJCC stage (stage IA, IB, IIA, IIB, IIC), and new stage-matched controls were collected for cases who could not be rematched. The original D-ESMEL validation cohort included 5,815 stage I/II melanoma patients, of whom 154 developed distant metastasis (cases). 98/154 Cases were stage II and only 24 stage II controls were included, while the stage-matched design now includes 153 stage-matched case-control sets of which 97 stage II cases and 97 stage II controls derived from a population-based cohort of 5,785 stage I/II patients. The updated design increased the biological variability among stage II controls, balanced weights in weighted analyses and thereby facilitating reliable subgroup analyses in this clinically important subgroup.
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.