PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to identify and compare the prognostic value of gene expression, chromosomal, and clinico-pathological data for the prediction of subsequent metastases in patients with primary uveal melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For comparison of different sets of predictor variables diagonal linear discriminant analysis was used. Chromosomal events were assessed by comparative genomic hybridization and gene expression profiling by microarray. Twenty-eight patients with a median follow-up of 68 months were analyzed, of whom 12 had developed subsequent metastases. RESULTS: Diagonal linear discriminant analysis with crossvalidation of gene expression data detected 42 genes as differentially expressed in metastasizing vsnon-metastasizing uveal melanomas in all 28 cases. Comparing quantitative scores of discriminant analysis, grouping precision was significant better with gene expression profiling compared to comparative genomic hybridization (P=0.01) and to clinical data (P=0.001). Two published gene lists associated with monosomy 3 and metastatic tumor growth were used as classifier for discriminant analysis and yielded superior classification in patients with and without subsequent metastases than chromosomal or clinico-pathological data. CONCLUSION: In our patient cohort gene expression profiling of primary uveal melanoma tissue was superior to clinical-pathological and chromosomal analysis to assess for the risk of subsequent metastases.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to identify and compare the prognostic value of gene expression, chromosomal, and clinico-pathological data for the prediction of subsequent metastases in patients with primary uveal melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For comparison of different sets of predictor variables diagonal linear discriminant analysis was used. Chromosomal events were assessed by comparative genomic hybridization and gene expression profiling by microarray. Twenty-eight patients with a median follow-up of 68 months were analyzed, of whom 12 had developed subsequent metastases. RESULTS: Diagonal linear discriminant analysis with crossvalidation of gene expression data detected 42 genes as differentially expressed in metastasizing vsnon-metastasizing uveal melanomas in all 28 cases. Comparing quantitative scores of discriminant analysis, grouping precision was significant better with gene expression profiling compared to comparative genomic hybridization (P=0.01) and to clinical data (P=0.001). Two published gene lists associated with monosomy 3 and metastatic tumor growth were used as classifier for discriminant analysis and yielded superior classification in patients with and without subsequent metastases than chromosomal or clinico-pathological data. CONCLUSION: In our patient cohort gene expression profiling of primary uveal melanoma tissue was superior to clinical-pathological and chromosomal analysis to assess for the risk of subsequent metastases.
Authors: Brandon T Nguyen; Ryan S Kim; Maria E Bretana; Eric Kegley; Amy C Schefler Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: J William Harbour; Manuel Paez-Escamilla; Louis Cai; Scott D Walter; James J Augsburger; Zelia M Correa Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Louis Cai; Manuel Paez-Escamilla; Scott D Walter; Bercin Tarlan; Christina L Decatur; Barbara M Perez; J William Harbour Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Matthew G Field; Jeffim N Kuznetsov; Parker L Bussies; Louie Z Cai; Karam A Alawa; Christina L Decatur; Stefan Kurtenbach; J William Harbour Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Christina L Decatur; Erin Ong; Nisha Garg; Hima Anbunathan; Anne M Bowcock; Matthew G Field; J William Harbour Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Scott D Walter; Daniel L Chao; William Feuer; Joyce Schiffman; Devron H Char; J William Harbour Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389