Cargando…

Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation

The rising incidence of cutaneous melanoma over the past few decades has prompted substantial efforts to develop risk prediction models identifying people at high risk of developing melanoma to facilitate targeted screening programs. We review these models, regarding study characteristics, differenc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaiser, Isabelle, Pfahlberg, Annette B., Uter, Wolfgang, Heppt, Markus V., Veierød, Marit B., Gefeller, Olaf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7662952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126677
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217919
_version_ 1783609514182836224
author Kaiser, Isabelle
Pfahlberg, Annette B.
Uter, Wolfgang
Heppt, Markus V.
Veierød, Marit B.
Gefeller, Olaf
author_facet Kaiser, Isabelle
Pfahlberg, Annette B.
Uter, Wolfgang
Heppt, Markus V.
Veierød, Marit B.
Gefeller, Olaf
author_sort Kaiser, Isabelle
collection PubMed
description The rising incidence of cutaneous melanoma over the past few decades has prompted substantial efforts to develop risk prediction models identifying people at high risk of developing melanoma to facilitate targeted screening programs. We review these models, regarding study characteristics, differences in risk factor selection and assessment, evaluation, and validation methods. Our systematic literature search revealed 40 studies comprising 46 different risk prediction models eligible for the review. Altogether, 35 different risk factors were part of the models with nevi being the most common one (n = 35, 78%); little consistency in other risk factors was observed. Results of an internal validation were reported for less than half of the studies (n = 18, 45%), and only 6 performed external validation. In terms of model performance, 29 studies assessed the discriminative ability of their models; other performance measures, e.g., regarding calibration or clinical usefulness, were rarely reported. Due to the substantial heterogeneity in risk factor selection and assessment as well as methodologic aspects of model development, direct comparisons between models are hardly possible. Uniform methodologic standards for the development and validation of risk prediction models for melanoma and reporting standards for the accompanying publications are necessary and need to be obligatory for that reason.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7662952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76629522020-11-14 Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation Kaiser, Isabelle Pfahlberg, Annette B. Uter, Wolfgang Heppt, Markus V. Veierød, Marit B. Gefeller, Olaf Int J Environ Res Public Health Review The rising incidence of cutaneous melanoma over the past few decades has prompted substantial efforts to develop risk prediction models identifying people at high risk of developing melanoma to facilitate targeted screening programs. We review these models, regarding study characteristics, differences in risk factor selection and assessment, evaluation, and validation methods. Our systematic literature search revealed 40 studies comprising 46 different risk prediction models eligible for the review. Altogether, 35 different risk factors were part of the models with nevi being the most common one (n = 35, 78%); little consistency in other risk factors was observed. Results of an internal validation were reported for less than half of the studies (n = 18, 45%), and only 6 performed external validation. In terms of model performance, 29 studies assessed the discriminative ability of their models; other performance measures, e.g., regarding calibration or clinical usefulness, were rarely reported. Due to the substantial heterogeneity in risk factor selection and assessment as well as methodologic aspects of model development, direct comparisons between models are hardly possible. Uniform methodologic standards for the development and validation of risk prediction models for melanoma and reporting standards for the accompanying publications are necessary and need to be obligatory for that reason. MDPI 2020-10-28 2020-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7662952/ /pubmed/33126677 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217919 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Kaiser, Isabelle
Pfahlberg, Annette B.
Uter, Wolfgang
Heppt, Markus V.
Veierød, Marit B.
Gefeller, Olaf
Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation
title Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation
title_full Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation
title_fullStr Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation
title_full_unstemmed Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation
title_short Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation
title_sort risk prediction models for melanoma: a systematic review on the heterogeneity in model development and validation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7662952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126677
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217919
work_keys_str_mv AT kaiserisabelle riskpredictionmodelsformelanomaasystematicreviewontheheterogeneityinmodeldevelopmentandvalidation
AT pfahlbergannetteb riskpredictionmodelsformelanomaasystematicreviewontheheterogeneityinmodeldevelopmentandvalidation
AT uterwolfgang riskpredictionmodelsformelanomaasystematicreviewontheheterogeneityinmodeldevelopmentandvalidation
AT hepptmarkusv riskpredictionmodelsformelanomaasystematicreviewontheheterogeneityinmodeldevelopmentandvalidation
AT veierødmaritb riskpredictionmodelsformelanomaasystematicreviewontheheterogeneityinmodeldevelopmentandvalidation
AT gefellerolaf riskpredictionmodelsformelanomaasystematicreviewontheheterogeneityinmodeldevelopmentandvalidation