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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |