Brian R Gastman1, Pedram Gerami2, Sarah J Kurley3, Robert W Cook4, Sancy Leachman5, John T Vetto6. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Pathology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Skin Cancer Institute, Northwestern University Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Castle Biosciences, Inc, Friendswood, Texas. 4. Castle Biosciences, Inc, Friendswood, Texas. Electronic address: rcook@castlebiosciences.com. 5. Department of Dermatology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients who relapse and die from cutaneous melanoma (CM) are categorized as being at low risk by traditional staging factors. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test independently stratifies metastatic risk of patients with CM as low (Class 1, with 1A indicating lowest risk) or high (Class 2,with 2B indicating highest risk). OBJECTIVE: To assess risk prediction by the 31-GEP test within 3 low-risk (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer) populations of patients with CM: those who are sentinel lymph node (SLN) negative, those with stage I to IIA tumors, and those with thin (≤1 mm [T1]) tumors. METHODS: A total of 3 previous validation studies provided a nonoverlapping cohort of 690 patients with 31-GEP results, staging information, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: The results included the identification of 70% of SLN-negative patients who experienced metastasis as Class 2, the discovery of reduced recurrence-free survival for patients with thin tumors and Class 2B biology compared with that of those with Class 1A biology (P < .0001); and determination of the 31-GEP test as an independent predictor of risk compared with traditional staging factors in patients with stage I to IIA tumors. LIMITATIONS: Diagnoses spanned multiple versions of pathologic staging criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The 31-GEP test identifies high-risk patients who are likely to experience recurrence or die of melanoma within low-risk groups of subpopulations of patients with CM who have SLN-negative disease, stage I to IIA tumors, and thin tumors.
BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients who relapse and die from cutaneous melanoma (CM) are categorized as being at low risk by traditional staging factors. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test independently stratifies metastatic risk of patients with CM as low (Class 1, with 1A indicating lowest risk) or high (Class 2,with 2B indicating highest risk). OBJECTIVE: To assess risk prediction by the 31-GEP test within 3 low-risk (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer) populations of patients with CM: those who are sentinel lymph node (SLN) negative, those with stage I to IIA tumors, and those with thin (≤1 mm [T1]) tumors. METHODS: A total of 3 previous validation studies provided a nonoverlapping cohort of 690 patients with 31-GEP results, staging information, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: The results included the identification of 70% of SLN-negative patients who experienced metastasis as Class 2, the discovery of reduced recurrence-free survival for patients with thin tumors and Class 2B biology compared with that of those with Class 1A biology (P < .0001); and determination of the 31-GEP test as an independent predictor of risk compared with traditional staging factors in patients with stage I to IIA tumors. LIMITATIONS: Diagnoses spanned multiple versions of pathologic staging criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The 31-GEP test identifies high-risk patients who are likely to experience recurrence or die of melanoma within low-risk groups of subpopulations of patients with CM who have SLN-negative disease, stage I to IIA tumors, and thin tumors.
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: M Claeson; P Baade; M Marchetti; S Brown; H P Soyer; B M Smithers; A C Green; D C Whiteman; K Khosrotehrani Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 11.113
Authors: Roy Rabbie; Peter Ferguson; Christian Molina-Aguilar; David J Adams; Carla D Robles-Espinoza Journal: J Pathol Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 7.996
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