Abstract
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms were developed to help guide sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) decisions. Although statistically validated, whether these prediction models provide clinical benefit at National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed thresholds is unknown. We conducted a net benefit analysis to quantify the clinical utility of these nomograms at risk thresholds of 5%-10% compared to the alternative strategy of biopsying all patients. External validation data for MIA and MSKCC nomograms were extracted from respective published studies. RESULTS: The MIA nomogram provided added net benefit at a risk threshold of 9% but net harm at 5%-8% and 10%. The MSKCC nomogram provided added net benefit at risk thresholds of 5% and 9%-10% but net harm at 6%-8%. When present, the magnitude of net benefit was small (1-3 net avoidable biopsies per 100 patients). CONCLUSION: Neither model consistently provided added net benefit compared to performing SLNB for all patients. DISCUSSION: Based on published data, use of the MIA or MSKCC nomograms as decision-making tools for SLNB at risk thresholds of 5%-10% does not clearly provide clinical benefit to patients.