Burden and Chemoprevention of Skin Cancer

The incidence of skin cancer is increasing in the Netherlands since 1989, the first year of the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). In 2010 more than 43,000 patients were newly diagnosed with skin cancer in the Netherlands. During a life time at least 1 in 5 persons living in the Netherlands will develop skin cancer. The most common skin cancer is basal cell carcinoma (BCC), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma. BCC and SCC combined are often referred to as nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). However, technically the group of NMSC also includes other types of skin cancer, such as T cell lymphoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and Kaposi sarcoma. In this thesis we therefore refer to BCC and SCC combined as keratinocytic cancers, because BCC and SCC both arise from the cells located in the epidermis, which is the upper layer of the skin

Genetic Concordance in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma and Matched Metastasis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Studying primary melanoma and its corresponding metastasis has twofold benefits. Firstly, to better understand tumor biology, and secondly, to determine which sample should be examined in assessing drug targets. This study systematically analyzed all the literature on primary melanoma and its matched metastasis. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched multiple medical databases for relevant publications from January 2000 to December 2022, assessed the quality of the primary-level studies using the QUIPS tool, and summarized the concordance rate of the most reported genes using the random-effects model. Finally, we evaluated the inter-study heterogeneity using the subgroup analysis. Thirty-one studies investigated the concordance of BRAF and NRAS in 1220 and 629 patients, respectively. The pooled concordance rate was 89.4% [95% CI: 84.5; 93.5] for BRAF and 97.8% [95% CI: 95.8; 99.4] for NRAS. When high-quality studies were considered, only BRAF mutation status consistency increased. Five studies reported the concordance status of c-KIT (93%, 44 patients) and TERT promoter (64%, 53 patients). Lastly, three studies analyzed the concordance of cancer genes involved in the signaling pathways, apoptosis, and proliferation, such as CDKN2A (25%, four patients), TP53 (44%, nine patients), and PIK3CA (20%, five patients). Our study found that the concordance of known drug targets (mainly BRAF) during melanoma progression is higher than in previous meta-analyses, likely due to advances in molecular techniques. Furthermore, significant heterogeneity exists in the genes involved in the melanoma genetic makeup; although our results are based on small patient samples, more research is necessary for validation.</p

The majority of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals are not registered and do not have a publicly accessible protocol:a scoping review

Objectives: Observational studies are not subject to the same requirements as randomized controlled trials, such as registration or publishing a protocol. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the registration rate of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals and to evaluate whether protocols were available in the public domain. Study Design and Setting: In March 2023, we searched OVID Medline for observational studies published in 2022 in the top five general medicine journals according to impact factor (The Lancet, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine). We defined an observational study as a cohort study, a case-control study, a cross-sectional study, or a case series. Information on i) the proportion of observational studies that have been registered and ii) the proportion of observational studies that have a protocol available in the public domain was extracted from a random sample of studies. Results: Our search identified 699 studies; 290 studies were selected as full text, and a random sample of 200 studies was included. For half of the studies, the first author worked at a US institution. Most studies were cohort studies (n = 126, 63.0%) and used administrative healthcare records, electronic healthcare records, and registries. Of the 200 observational studies, 20 (10.0%) were registered. Among those, 14 were prospectively registered. Twenty-four studies (12.0%) had a protocol available in the public domain. Studies that were registered or had a protocol, were more frequently published in the BMJ (n = 12/28, 42.9%), had a first author working in the UK (n = 10/28, 35.7%) and used electronic health care records (n = 13/28, 46.4%) compared to studies with no registration and no protocol. Conclusion: The rate of prospectively registered observational studies is worryingly low. Prospective registration of observational studies should be encouraged and standardized to ensure transparency in clinical research and reduce research waste.</p

The majority of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals are not registered and do not have a publicly accessible protocol:a scoping review

Objectives: Observational studies are not subject to the same requirements as randomized controlled trials, such as registration or publishing a protocol. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the registration rate of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals and to evaluate whether protocols were available in the public domain. Study Design and Setting: In March 2023, we searched OVID Medline for observational studies published in 2022 in the top five general medicine journals according to impact factor (The Lancet, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine). We defined an observational study as a cohort study, a case-control study, a cross-sectional study, or a case series. Information on i) the proportion of observational studies that have been registered and ii) the proportion of observational studies that have a protocol available in the public domain was extracted from a random sample of studies. Results: Our search identified 699 studies; 290 studies were selected as full text, and a random sample of 200 studies was included. For half of the studies, the first author worked at a US institution. Most studies were cohort studies (n = 126, 63.0%) and used administrative healthcare records, electronic healthcare records, and registries. Of the 200 observational studies, 20 (10.0%) were registered. Among those, 14 were prospectively registered. Twenty-four studies (12.0%) had a protocol available in the public domain. Studies that were registered or had a protocol, were more frequently published in the BMJ (n = 12/28, 42.9%), had a first author working in the UK (n = 10/28, 35.7%) and used electronic health care records (n = 13/28, 46.4%) compared to studies with no registration and no protocol. Conclusion: The rate of prospectively registered observational studies is worryingly low. Prospective registration of observational studies should be encouraged and standardized to ensure transparency in clinical research and reduce research waste.</p

Weighted metrics are required when evaluating the performance of prediction models in nested case–control studies

Background: Nested case–control (NCC) designs are efficient for developing and validating prediction models that use expensive or difficult-to-obtain predictors, especially when the outcome is rare. Previous research has focused on how to develop prediction models in this sampling design, but little attention has been given to model validation in this context. We therefore aimed to systematically characterize the key elements for the correct evaluation of the performance of prediction models in NCC data. Methods: We proposed how to correctly evaluate prediction models in NCC data, by adjusting performance metrics with sampling weights to account for the NCC sampling. We included in this study the C-index, threshold-based metrics, Observed-to-expected events ratio (O/E ratio), calibration slope, and decision curve analysis. We illustrated the proposed metrics with a validation of the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA version 5) in data from the population-based Rotterdam study. We compared the metrics obtained in the full cohort with those obtained in NCC datasets sampled from the Rotterdam study, with and without a matched design. Results: Performance metrics without weight adjustment were biased: the unweighted C-index in NCC datasets was 0.61 (0.58–0.63) for the unmatched design, while the C-index in the full cohort and the weighted C-index in the NCC datasets were similar: 0.65 (0.62–0.69) and 0.65 (0.61–0.69), respectively. The unweighted O/E ratio was 18.38 (17.67–19.06) in the NCC datasets, while it was 1.69 (1.42–1.93) in the full cohort and its weighted version in the NCC datasets was 1.68 (1.53–1.84). Similarly, weighted adjustments of threshold-based metrics and net benefit for decision curves were unbiased estimates of the corresponding metrics in the full cohort, while the corresponding unweighted metrics were biased. In the matched design, the bias of the unweighted metrics was larger, but it could also be compensated by the weight adjustment. Conclusions: Nested case–control studies are an efficient solution for evaluating the performance of prediction models that use expensive or difficult-to-obtain biomarkers, especially when the outcome is rare, but the performance metrics need to be adjusted to the sampling procedure.</p

Weighted metrics are required when evaluating the performance of prediction models in nested case–control studies

Background: Nested case–control (NCC) designs are efficient for developing and validating prediction models that use expensive or difficult-to-obtain predictors, especially when the outcome is rare. Previous research has focused on how to develop prediction models in this sampling design, but little attention has been given to model validation in this context. We therefore aimed to systematically characterize the key elements for the correct evaluation of the performance of prediction models in NCC data. Methods: We proposed how to correctly evaluate prediction models in NCC data, by adjusting performance metrics with sampling weights to account for the NCC sampling. We included in this study the C-index, threshold-based metrics, Observed-to-expected events ratio (O/E ratio), calibration slope, and decision curve analysis. We illustrated the proposed metrics with a validation of the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA version 5) in data from the population-based Rotterdam study. We compared the metrics obtained in the full cohort with those obtained in NCC datasets sampled from the Rotterdam study, with and without a matched design. Results: Performance metrics without weight adjustment were biased: the unweighted C-index in NCC datasets was 0.61 (0.58–0.63) for the unmatched design, while the C-index in the full cohort and the weighted C-index in the NCC datasets were similar: 0.65 (0.62–0.69) and 0.65 (0.61–0.69), respectively. The unweighted O/E ratio was 18.38 (17.67–19.06) in the NCC datasets, while it was 1.69 (1.42–1.93) in the full cohort and its weighted version in the NCC datasets was 1.68 (1.53–1.84). Similarly, weighted adjustments of threshold-based metrics and net benefit for decision curves were unbiased estimates of the corresponding metrics in the full cohort, while the corresponding unweighted metrics were biased. In the matched design, the bias of the unweighted metrics was larger, but it could also be compensated by the weight adjustment. Conclusions: Nested case–control studies are an efficient solution for evaluating the performance of prediction models that use expensive or difficult-to-obtain biomarkers, especially when the outcome is rare, but the performance metrics need to be adjusted to the sampling procedure.</p

Cumulative incidence and timing of subsequent cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas stratified for patients with organ transplantation and hematologic malignancies:A nationwide cohort study

Background: There is lack of nationwide data on the cumulative incidence and timing of subsequent cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) among patients with a first cSCC. Objective: To investigate the cumulative incidence and timing of subsequent cSCCs. Methods: Patients with a first cSCC in 2007/2008 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were linked to the Netherlands Pathology Registry for subsequent cSCCs and the Netherlands Organ Transplant Registry. Cumulative incidence function curves were calculated for subsequent cSCCs and stratified for immune status. Results: Among the 12,345 patients, second to sixth cSCC occurred in 4325, 2010, 1138, 739, and 501 patients, with median time intervals of 1.4, 1.2, 0.9, 0.6, and 0.5 years after the previous cSCC, respectively. The cumulative incidence of a subsequent cSCC at 5 years increased from 28% to 67% for the second to sixth cSCC. For solid organ transplant recipients, the cumulative incidences increased from 74% to 92% and from 41% to 64% for patients with hematologic malignancy. Limitations: Only histopathologically confirmed cSCCs were included. Conclusion: The risk of a subsequent cSCC steeply rises with the number of prior cSCCs and immune status, while the time interval decreases. This can support more informed decisions about follow-up management.</p

Cumulative incidence and timing of subsequent cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas stratified for patients with organ transplantation and hematologic malignancies:A nationwide cohort study

Background: There is lack of nationwide data on the cumulative incidence and timing of subsequent cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) among patients with a first cSCC. Objective: To investigate the cumulative incidence and timing of subsequent cSCCs. Methods: Patients with a first cSCC in 2007/2008 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were linked to the Netherlands Pathology Registry for subsequent cSCCs and the Netherlands Organ Transplant Registry. Cumulative incidence function curves were calculated for subsequent cSCCs and stratified for immune status. Results: Among the 12,345 patients, second to sixth cSCC occurred in 4325, 2010, 1138, 739, and 501 patients, with median time intervals of 1.4, 1.2, 0.9, 0.6, and 0.5 years after the previous cSCC, respectively. The cumulative incidence of a subsequent cSCC at 5 years increased from 28% to 67% for the second to sixth cSCC. For solid organ transplant recipients, the cumulative incidences increased from 74% to 92% and from 41% to 64% for patients with hematologic malignancy. Limitations: Only histopathologically confirmed cSCCs were included. Conclusion: The risk of a subsequent cSCC steeply rises with the number of prior cSCCs and immune status, while the time interval decreases. This can support more informed decisions about follow-up management.</p