ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Comparing the i31-SLNB and the MIA Nomogram for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Positivity Prediction in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Prospective Cohort Analysis.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for cutaneous melanoma (CM) provides essential prognostic information and is a component of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging; however, up to 88% of SLNBs performed are negative. This means most patients who undergo the procedure do not benefit but are exposed to additional costs and surgery-associated morbidities. Improved tools are needed to identify patients at low risk of sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity for whom the procedure is unnecessary and can be avoided. Here, we compared the sentinel lymph node positivity predictive accuracy of the integrated 31-gene expression profile (GEP) for sentinel lymph node biopsy (i31-SLNB) and the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) nomogram in patients with CM enrolled in the prospective DECIDE study who underwent SLNB.
methodsData from patients with T1-T4 tumors and i31-SLNB test results from a prospective, multicenter study were evaluated. Area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare the discriminative performance of the i31-SLNB and MIA nomogram in predicting SLN positivity. Observed SLN positivity rates in patients with conflicting risk predictions were examined.
resultsThe analysis included 912 patients, of whom 430 were SLN-assessed. The i31-SLNB predicted < 5% risk of SLN positivity more often than the MIA nomogram and observed positivity was below 5% for the i31-SLNB (2.6%, negative predictive value [NPV] = 97.4%, 95% CI 94.2-100.0%) but not the MIA nomogram (5.8%, NPV = 94.2%, 95% CI 88.1-98.7%). The AUC for the i31-SLNB was 0.74, significantly higher than that of the MIA nomogram (0.61; p = 0.001), demonstrating better discriminative performance. At 5% and 10% risk thresholds, when the tools conflicted in their risk predictions, the i31-SLNB was accurate, with observed SLN positivity rates of 1.9% and 2.8% below each threshold and 11.5% and 25.8% above each threshold.
conclusionsThe i31-SLNB more accurately stratifies patients under consideration for SLNB into groups based on risk of SLN positivity than the clinicopathologic-only MIA nomogram.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.