Literature DB >> 28628677

Impact of a 31-gene Expression Profiling Test for Cutaneous Melanoma on Dermatologists' Clinical Management Decisions.

Aaron S Farberg, Alex M Glazer, Richard White, Darrell S Rigel.   

Abstract

<p>Importance: Current guidelines for cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) provide general recommendations regarding surveillance while indicating that management should be tailored to patients' individual probability of recurrence. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test to predict metastatic risk has been previously validated, and classifies patients as either Class 1 (low risk) or Class 2 (high risk).</p> <p>Objective: To determine the impact of the 31-GEP test's result on clinical decision-making.</p> <p>Design, Setting, and Participants: Dermatology residents who attended a national educational conference were presented with clinical validity evidence for the 31-GEP. Respondents were given six CMM patient vignettes with descriptions of clinical features and answered questions about their willingness to recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) or imaging based on each scenario. Additionally, respondents were asked to provide the Breslow thickness (BT), ranging from 0.7-1.5mm in 0.1mm increments, at which they would recommend SLNBx, imaging, or oncology referral.</p> <p>Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of respondents who would recommend each management modality based upon three outcomes (no result, Class 1, or Class 2) was quantified. Differences between response groups were assessed using Fisher's exact test.</p> <p>
Results: The majority of respondents (62%, 57%, and 55%, respectively) indicated a 1.0mm BT as the guiding modality, reflecting adherence to current guidelines. After inclusion of a Class 2 result, the BT used to guide SLNBx, oncology referral, and imaging was changed in 47%, 50% and 47% of the responses, respectively, with 95%, 84% and 97% of the cases, respectively, changed in a risk-appropriate direction (decreased BT). Based on a 31-GEP Class 1 or Class 2 result, risk appropriate recommendations were more likely to be made for each management modality tested in five of the six patient vignettes (P less than 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions and Relevance: The 31-GEP test had a significant and appropriate impact on management while remaining within the context of established guidelines.</p> <p><em>J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(5):428-431.</em></p>.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28628677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Drugs Dermatol        ISSN: 1545-9616            Impact factor:   2.114


  4 in total

1.  Prospective validation of the prognostic 31-gene expression profiling test in primary cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  Jennifer Keller; Theresa L Schwartz; Jason M Lizalek; Ea-Sle Chang; Ashaki D Patel; Maria Y Hurley; Eddy C Hsueh
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 2.  Level of Evidence Review for a Gene Expression Profile Test for Cutaneous Melanoma.

Authors:  Danielle P Dubin; Scott M Dinehart; Aaron S Farberg
Journal:  Am J Clin Dermatol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 7.403

Review 3.  Expert Consensus on the Use of Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Tests for the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus from the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group.

Authors:  Aaron S Farberg; Justin W Marson; Alex Glazer; Graham H Litchman; Ryan Svoboda; Richard R Winkelmann; Nicholas Brownstone; Darrell S Rigel
Journal:  Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-03-30

4.  Early outcome of a 31-gene expression profile test in 86 AJCC stage IB-II melanoma patients. A prospective multicentre cohort study.

Authors:  S Podlipnik; C Carrera; A Boada; N A Richarz; J L López-Estebaranz; F Pinedo-Moraleda; M Elosua-González; M M Martín-González; R Carrillo-Gijón; P Redondo; E Moreno; J Malvehy; S Puig
Journal:  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 6.166

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.