Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41524883›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2026

An extension of the validation cohort of the Dutch Early-Stage Melanoma (D-ESMEL) study for stage-specific analyses.

Catherine Zhou, Antien L Mooyaart, Nikita Hulscher, Thamila Kerkour, Jasper Ouwerkerk, Marieke W J Louwman, Marlies Wakkee, Yunlei Li, Quirinus J M Voorham, Annette Bruggink and 2 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Catherine ZhouDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Antien L MooyaartDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nikita HulscherDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Thamila KerkourDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jasper OuwerkerkDepartment of Pathology & Clinical Bioinformatics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marieke W J LouwmanDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marlies WakkeeDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Yunlei LiDepartment of Pathology & Clinical Bioinformatics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Quirinus J M VoorhamDutch Nationwide Pathology Databank (Palga Foundation), Houten, The Netherlands.
Annette BrugginkDutch Nationwide Pathology Databank (Palga Foundation), Houten, The Netherlands.
Tamar E C NijstenDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Loes M HollesteinDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.hollestein@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8922-6791

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 2021-1-13470
6 · The paper itself

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

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsPrognosisMelanomaNested case-control studyPrognostic modelStage II

Identifiers

PMID41524883
PMCPMC12881164

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.