Bradley N Greenhaw1,2, John A Zitelli2, David G Brodland2. 1. Dermatology Center of North Mississippi, PA, Tupelo, Mississippi. 2. Zitelli & Brodland PC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Shadyside, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanomas (CMs) with similar clinical and histopathologic features can harbor differing capacities for metastasis. A validated gene expression profile (GEP) test offers prognostic information by classifying CMs as low risk (Class 1A/1B) or high risk (Class 2A/2B) for metastasis. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to perform an independent study of the predictive accuracy of the GEP test, to determine what clinical and histopathologic features predict high-risk classification, and to evaluate how intermediate classes (1B & 2A) performed clinically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using our institution's prospectively collected melanoma registry, the authors identified patients who had been treated for CM within the last 5 years and undergone GEP testing. Clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data were analyzed. A subcohort of patients with known metastatic disease were identified and tested. RESULTS: The GEP test accurately identified 77% of metastatic CMs as high risk (Class 2). The GEP had a negative predictive value of 99% for Class 1 CMs. Class 2 CMs were 22 times more likely to metastasize. CONCLUSION: The GEP test's performance in our independent cohort corresponded with previous industry-sponsored studies and proved to be a helpful clinical prognostic tool with the potential to direct patient care protocols.
BACKGROUND:Cutaneous melanomas (CMs) with similar clinical and histopathologic features can harbor differing capacities for metastasis. A validated gene expression profile (GEP) test offers prognostic information by classifying CMs as low risk (Class 1A/1B) or high risk (Class 2A/2B) for metastasis. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to perform an independent study of the predictive accuracy of the GEP test, to determine what clinical and histopathologic features predict high-risk classification, and to evaluate how intermediate classes (1B & 2A) performed clinically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using our institution's prospectively collected melanoma registry, the authors identified patients who had been treated for CM within the last 5 years and undergone GEP testing. Clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data were analyzed. A subcohort of patients with known metastatic disease were identified and tested. RESULTS: The GEP test accurately identified 77% of metastatic CMs as high risk (Class 2). The GEP had a negative predictive value of 99% for Class 1 CMs. Class 2 CMs were 22 times more likely to metastasize. CONCLUSION: The GEP test's performance in our independent cohort corresponded with previous industry-sponsored studies and proved to be a helpful clinical prognostic tool with the potential to direct patient care protocols.
Authors: Douglas Grossman; Nwanneka Okwundu; Edmund K Bartlett; Michael A Marchetti; Megan Othus; Daniel G Coit; Rebecca I Hartman; Sancy A Leachman; Elizabeth G Berry; Larissa Korde; Sandra J Lee; Menashe Bar-Eli; Marianne Berwick; Tawnya Bowles; Elizabeth I Buchbinder; Elizabeth M Burton; Emily Y Chu; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Julia A Curtis; Adil Daud; Dekker C Deacon; Laura K Ferris; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Kenneth F Grossmann; Siwen Hu-Lieskovan; John Hyngstrom; Joanne M Jeter; Robert L Judson-Torres; Kari L Kendra; Caroline C Kim; John M Kirkwood; David H Lawson; Philip D Leming; Georgina V Long; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Janice M Mehnert; Michael E Ming; Kelly C Nelson; David Polsky; Richard A Scolyer; Eric A Smith; Vernon K Sondak; Mitchell S Stark; Jennifer A Stein; John A Thompson; John F Thompson; Suraj S Venna; Maria L Wei; Susan M Swetter Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Evalyn E A P Mulder; Iva Johansson; Dirk J Grünhagen; Dennie Tempel; Barbara Rentroia-Pacheco; Jvalini T Dwarkasing; Daniëlle Verver; Antien L Mooyaart; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Marlies Wakkee; Tamar E C Nijsten; Cornelis Verhoef; Jan Mattsson; Lars Ny; Loes M Hollestein; Roger Olofsson Bagge Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Michael A Marchetti; Daniel G Coit; Stephen W Dusza; Ashley Yu; LaToya McLean; Yinin Hu; Japbani K Nanda; Konstantina Matsoukas; Silvia E Mancebo; Edmund K Bartlett Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Eddy C Hsueh; James R DeBloom; Jonathan H Lee; Jeffrey J Sussman; Kyle R Covington; Hillary G Caruso; Ann P Quick; Robert W Cook; Craig L Slingluff; Kelly M McMasters Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-04-06
Authors: Wesley Y Yu; Sheena T Hill; E Ricky Chan; John J Pink; Kevin Cooper; Sancy Leachman; Amanda W Lund; Rajan Kulkarni; Jeremy S Bordeaux Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 7.590
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