Sentinel lymph node positivity in melanoma: Which risk prediction tool is most accurate?

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma determines treatment and prognostic factors and improves disease-specific survival. To risk-stratify patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy consideration, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Melanoma Institute Australia developed nomograms to predict sentinel lymph node positivity. We aimed to compare the accuracy of these 2 nomograms. METHODS: A multi-institutional study of patients with melanoma receiving sentinel lymph node biopsy between September 2018 and December 2022 was performed. The accuracy of the 2 risk prediction tools in determining a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve. RESULTS: In total, 532 patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma; 98 (18.4%) had positive sentinel lymph node. Increasing age was inversely related to sentinel lymph node positivity (P < .01); 35.7% of patients ≤30 years had positive sentinel lymph node compared with 9.7% of patients ≥75 years. When we analyzed the entire study population, accuracy of the 2 risk prediction tools was equal (area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.693; area under the curveMIA: 0.699). However, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center tool was a better predictor in patients aged ≥75 years (area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.801; area under the curveMelanoma Institute Australia: 0.712, P < .01) but Melanoma Institute Australia tool performed better in patients with a higher mitotic index (mitoses/mm2 ≥2; area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.659; area under the curveMelanoma Institute Australia: 0.717, P = .027). Both models were poor predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity in young patients (age ≤30 years; area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.456; area under the curveMelanoma Institute Australia: 0.589, P = .283). CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that the 2 risk stratification tools differ in their abilities to predict sentinel lymph node positivity in specific populations: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center tool is a better predictor for older patients, whereas Melanoma Institute Australia tool is more accurate in patients with a higher mitotic index. Both nomograms performed poorly in predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in young patients.

Female authorship trends and the effect of COVID-19 on cataract and refractive surgery literature.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether gender barriers persist specifically in the cataract and refractive surgery (CRS) literature. In addition, no literature exists investigating the long-term effect of COVID-19 on female authorship in ophthalmology past 2020. SETTING: Scopus 2015 to 2022. DESIGN: Retrospective data review. METHODS: Articles published in the Journal of Refractive Surgery and the Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery were recorded from January 2015 to February 2022 from Scopus. Articles with only 1 author or where gender could not be identified were excluded. The first author (FA) gender, senior author (SA) gender, affiliated country, type of literature, and number of citations were collected. Pearson chi-squared tests with phi coefficients and multivariate logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: 3153 articles were included in analysis. There were 910 works with female FAs and 648 with female SAs. Gender did not predict publishing in one journal over the other (P > .050). Women made up less than 30% of authorship of all types of literature, except for prospective/observational studies as FA (31.3%). Compared with before 2020, female FAs from 2020 onward were associated with increased retrospective analysis (phi = 0.072, P = .030) and letters/editorials (phi = 0.134, P < .001) but decreased case reports (phi = 0.087, P = .009) and "others" (phi = -0.164, P < .001). Similar associations were observed for female SAs. Females were more likely to publish in Asian countries. Female SAs predicted an increased likelihood of female FAs (odds ratio, 1.401, 95% CI, 1.165-1.684, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities exist in authorship of the CRS literature. COVID-19 has altered the types of literature published by women, but men still publish most of all types of CRS research.