Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Support Vector Machine Learning Model for the Prediction of Sentinel Node Status in Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma

  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

Currently, approximately 80% of melanoma patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy (SNB) have negative sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), and no prediction system is reliable enough to be implemented in the clinical setting to reduce the number of SNB procedures. In this study, the predictive power of support vector machine (SVM)-based statistical analysis was tested.

Methods:

The clinical records of 246 patients who underwent SNB at our institution were used for this analysis. The following clinicopathologic variables were considered: the patient’s age and sex and the tumor’s histological subtype, Breslow thickness, Clark level, ulceration, mitotic index, lymphocyte infiltration, regression, angiolymphatic invasion, microsatellitosis, and growth phase. The results of SVM-based prediction of SLN status were compared with those achieved with logistic regression.

Results:

The SLN positivity rate was 22% (52 of 234). When the accuracy was ≥80%, the negative predictive value, positive predictive value, specificity, and sensitivity were 98%, 54%, 94%, and 77% and 82%, 41%, 69%, and 93% by using SVM and logistic regression, respectively. Moreover, SVM and logistic regression were associated with a diagnostic error and an SNB percentage reduction of (1) 1% and 60% and (2) 15% and 73%, respectively.

Conclusions:

The results from this pilot study suggest that SVM-based prediction of SLN status might be evaluated as a prognostic method to avoid the SNB procedure in 60% of patients currently eligible, with a very low error rate. If validated in larger series, this strategy would lead to obvious advantages in terms of both patient quality of life and costs for the health care system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992; 127:392–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Leong SP. Paradigm of metastasis for melanoma and breast cancer based on the sentinel lymph node experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:192S–7S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsao H, Atkins MB, Sober AJ. Management of cutaneous melanoma. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:998–1012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for melanoma: past, present, and future. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8:22S–28S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McMasters KM, Reintgen DS, Ross MI, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: controversy despite widespread agreement. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:2851–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Takeuchi H, Morton DL, Kuo C, et al. Prognostic significance of molecular upstaging of paraffin-embedded sentinel lymph nodes in melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:2671–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohrle M, Schippert W, Rassner G, et al. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy of therapeutic relevance for melanoma? Dermatology 2004; 209:5–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fife K, Thompson JF. Lymph-node metastases in patients with melanoma: what is the optimum management? Lancet Oncol 2001; 2:614–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Caraco C, Celentano E, Lastoria S, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy does not change melanoma-specific survival among patients with Breslow thickness greater than four millimeters. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:198S–202S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Roka F, Kittler H, Cauzig P, et al. Sentinel node status in melanoma patients is not predictive for overall survival upon multivariate analysis. Br J Cancer 2005

  11. Vuylsteke RJ, van Leeuwen PA, Statius Muller MG, et al. Clinical outcome of stage I/II melanoma patients after selective sentinel lymph node dissection: long-term follow-up results. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:1057–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shen J, Wallace AM, Bouvet M. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Semin Oncol 2002; 29:341–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McMasters KM. What good is sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma if it does not improve survival? Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:810–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Doting MH, Hoekstra HJ, Plukker JT, et al. Is sentinel node biopsy beneficial in melanoma patients? A report on 200 patients with cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002; 28:673–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Thompson JF, Stretch JR, Uren RF, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for melanoma: where have we been and where are we going? Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:147S–51S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wrightson WR, Wong SL, Edwards MJ, et al. Complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:676–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hettiaratchy SP, Kang N, O’Toole G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in malignant melanoma: a series of 100 consecutive patients. Br J Plast Surg 2000; 53:559–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cimmino VM, Brown AC, Szocik JF, et al. Allergic reactions to isosulfan blue during sentinel node biopsy—a common event. Surgery 2001; 130:439–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Roaten JB, Pearlman N, Gonzalez R, et al. Identifying risk factors for complications following sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Arch Surg 2005; 140:85–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wasserberg N, Tulchinsky H, Schachter J, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) for melanoma is not complication-free. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:851–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brobeil A, Cruse CW, Messina JL, et al. Cost analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy as an alternative to elective lymph node dissection in patients with malignant melanoma. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 1999; 8:435–45, viii

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Agnese DM, Abdessalam SF, Burak WE Jr, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node biopsy in thin melanomas. Surgery 2003; 134:542–7; discussion 547–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Estourgie SH, Nieweg OE, Kroon BB. High incidence of in-transit metastases after sentinel node biopsy in patients with melanoma. Br J Surg 2004; 91:1370–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Thomas JM, Clark MA. Selective lymphadenectomy in sentinel node-positive patients may increase the risk of local/in-transit recurrence in malignant melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:686–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rossi CR, Mocellin S, Scagnet B, et al. The role of preoperative ultrasound scan in detecting lymph node metastasis before sentinel node biopsy in melanoma patients. J Surg Oncol 2003; 83:80–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rossi CR, Scagnet B, Vecchiato A, et al. Sentinel node biopsy and ultrasound scanning in cutaneous melanoma: clinical and technical considerations. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36:895–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall, 1990.

  28. Vapnik V. Statistical Learning Theory. Wiley, 1998

  29. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2001

  30. Byvatov E, Schneider G. Support vector machine applications in bioinformatics. Appl Bioinformatics 2003; 2:67–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wagner JD, Gordon MS, Chuang TY, et al. Predicting sentinel and residual lymph node basin disease after sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Cancer 2000; 89:453–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:976–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cascinelli N, Belli F, Santinami M, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in cutaneous melanoma: the WHO Melanoma Program experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:469–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Essner R, Conforti A, Kelley MC, et al. Efficacy of lymphatic mapping, sentinel lymphadenectomy, and selective complete lymph node dissection as a therapeutic procedure for early-stage melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6:442–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chao C, Martin RC II, Ross MI, et al. Correlation between prognostic factors and increasing age in melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:259–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. McMasters KM, Wong SL, Edwards MJ, et al. Factors that predict the presence of sentinel lymph node metastasis in patients with melanoma. Surgery 2001; 130:151–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Nguyen CL, McClay EF, Cole DJ, et al. Melanoma thickness and histology predict sentinel lymph node status. Am J Surg 2001; 181:8–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mraz-Gernhard S, Sagebiel RW, Kashani-Sabet M, et al. Prediction of sentinel lymph node micrometastasis by histological features in primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Arch Dermatol 1998; 134:983–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Cuellar FA, Vilalta A, Rull R, et al. Small cell melanoma and ulceration as predictors of positive sentinel lymph node in malignant melanoma patients. Melanoma Res 2004; 14:277–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thompson JF. The Sydney Melanoma Unit experience of sentinel lymphadenectomy for melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8:44S–47S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Sondak VK, Taylor JM, Sabel MS, et al. Mitotic rate and younger age are predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity: lessons learned from the generation of a probabilistic model. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:247–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Furey TS, Cristianini N, Duffy N, et al. Support vector machine classification and validation of cancer tissue samples using microarray expression data. Bioinformatics 2000; 16:906–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mocellin S, Provenzano M, Rossi CR, et al. DNA array-based gene profiling: from surgical specimen to the molecular portrait of cancer. Ann Surg 2005; 241:16–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Machet L, Nemeth-Normand F, Giraudeau B, et al. Is ultrasound lymph node examination superior to clinical examination in melanoma follow-up? A monocentre cohort study of 373 patients. Br J Dermatol 2005; 152:66–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hocevar M, Bracko M, Pogacnik A, et al. The role of preoperative ultrasonography in reducing the number of sentinel lymph node procedures in melanoma. Melanoma Res 2004; 14:533–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Chagnon S, et al. Ultrasonography or palpation for detection of melanoma nodal invasion: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2004; 5:673–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schmid-Wendtner MH, Dill-Muller D, Baumert J, et al. Lymph node metastases in patients with cutaneous melanoma: improvements in diagnosis by signal-enhanced color Doppler sonography. Melanoma Res 2004; 14:269–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lean CL, Bourne R, Thompson JF, et al. Rapid detection of metastatic melanoma in lymph nodes using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of fine needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Melanoma Res 2003; 13:259–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported by a grant from the Regione Veneto.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinica Chirurgica 2, Dipartimento di Scienze Oncologiche e Chirurgiche, Università di Padova, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128, Padova, Italy

    Simone Mocellin MD, PhD, Alessandro Ambrosi PhD, Mirto Foletto MD, Giorgio Zavagno MD, Donato Nitti MD, Mario Lise MD & Carlo Riccardo Rossi MD

  2. Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Padova, Italy

    Simone Mocellin MD, PhD

  3. Pathology Section, Department of Oncological and Surgical Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Maria Cristina Montesco MD

Authors
  1. Simone Mocellin MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Ambrosi PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Cristina Montesco MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mirto Foletto MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giorgio Zavagno MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Donato Nitti MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mario Lise MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carlo Riccardo Rossi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Mocellin MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mocellin, S., Ambrosi, A., Montesco, M.C. et al. Support Vector Machine Learning Model for the Prediction of Sentinel Node Status in Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 13, 1113–1122 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.03.019

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.03.019

Keywords

Search

Navigation