BMJ open · 2023
Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kunonga Tafadzwa Patience, Kenny R P W, Astin Margaret, Bryant Andrew, Kontogiannis Vasileios, Coughlan Diarmuid, Richmond Catherine, Eastaugh Claire H, Beyer Fiona R, Pearson Fiona, Craig Dawn, Lovat Penny, Vale Luke, Ellis Robert
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To identify prognostic models for melanoma survival, recurrence and metastasis among American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I and II patients postsurgery; and evaluate model performance, including overall survival (OS) prediction.
DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis.
DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and grey literature sources including cancer and guideline websites from 2000 to September 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies on risk prediction models for stage I and II melanoma in adults ≥18 years. Outcomes included OS, recurrence, metastases and model performance. No language or country of publication restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist and the Prediction study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Heterogeneous predictors prevented statistical synthesis.
RESULTS: From 28 967 records, 15 studies reporting 20 models were included; 8 (stage I), 2 (stage II), 7 (stages I-II) and 7 (stages not reported), but were clearly applicable to early stages. Clinicopathological predictors per model ranged from 3-10. The most common were: ulceration, Breslow thickness/depth, sociodemographic status and site. Where reported, discriminatory values were ≥0.7. Calibration measures showed good matches between predicted and observed rates. None of the studies assessed clinical usefulness of the models. Risk of bias was high in eight models, unclear in nine and low in three. Seven models were internally and externally cross-validated, six models were externally validated and eight models were internally validated.
CONCLUSIONS: All models are effective in their predictive performance, however the low quality of the evidence raises concern as to whether current follow-up recommendations following surgical treatment is adequate. Future models should incorporate biomarkers for improved accuracy.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086784.
DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis.
DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and grey literature sources including cancer and guideline websites from 2000 to September 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies on risk prediction models for stage I and II melanoma in adults ≥18 years. Outcomes included OS, recurrence, metastases and model performance. No language or country of publication restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist and the Prediction study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Heterogeneous predictors prevented statistical synthesis.
RESULTS: From 28 967 records, 15 studies reporting 20 models were included; 8 (stage I), 2 (stage II), 7 (stages I-II) and 7 (stages not reported), but were clearly applicable to early stages. Clinicopathological predictors per model ranged from 3-10. The most common were: ulceration, Breslow thickness/depth, sociodemographic status and site. Where reported, discriminatory values were ≥0.7. Calibration measures showed good matches between predicted and observed rates. None of the studies assessed clinical usefulness of the models. Risk of bias was high in eight models, unclear in nine and low in three. Seven models were internally and externally cross-validated, six models were externally validated and eight models were internally validated.
CONCLUSIONS: All models are effective in their predictive performance, however the low quality of the evidence raises concern as to whether current follow-up recommendations following surgical treatment is adequate. Future models should incorporate biomarkers for improved accuracy.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086784.