Louis Cai1, Manuel Paez-Escamilla1, Scott D Walter1, Bercin Tarlan1, Christina L Decatur1, Barbara M Perez1, J William Harbour2. 1. Ocular Oncology Service, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 2. Ocular Oncology Service, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. Electronic address: harbour@miami.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the prognostic accuracy of gene expression profiling (GEP) combined with PRAME status vs the clinical Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study included 240 consecutive patients with UM. Tumors were assessed for GEP status (Class 1 or Class 2) using a validated 15-gene assay and PRAME expression status using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. TNM staging was according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition. Statistical analysis included univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Metastasis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: GEP was Class 1 in 128 (53.3%) cases and Class 2 in 112 (46.7%) cases. PRAME status was negative in 157 (65.4%) cases and positive in 83 (34.6%) cases. TNM was stage I in 26 (10.8%) cases, IIA in 67 (27.9%) cases, IIB in 50 (20.8%) cases, IIIA in 59 (24.6%) cases, and IIIB in 38 (15.8%) cases. Metastatic disease was detected in 59 (24.6%) cases after median follow-up of 29 months (mean 42 months; range 1-195 months). Variables associated with metastasis included (in order of decreasing significance): GEP class (P = 1.5 × 10-8), largest basal tumor diameter (P = 2.5 × 10-6), PRAME status (P = 2.6 × 10-6), and TNM stage (P = 3.7 × 10-6). The prognostic accuracy of an optimized 3-category GEP/PRAME model (P = 8.6 × 10-14) was superior to an optimized TNM model (P = 1.3 × 10-5). CONCLUSIONS: In UM, molecular prognostic testing using GEP and PRAME provides prognostic accuracy that is superior to TNM staging.
PURPOSE: To compare the prognostic accuracy of gene expression profiling (GEP) combined with PRAME status vs the clinical Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study included 240 consecutive patients with UM. Tumors were assessed for GEP status (Class 1 or Class 2) using a validated 15-gene assay and PRAME expression status using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. TNM staging was according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition. Statistical analysis included univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Metastasis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: GEP was Class 1 in 128 (53.3%) cases and Class 2 in 112 (46.7%) cases. PRAME status was negative in 157 (65.4%) cases and positive in 83 (34.6%) cases. TNM was stage I in 26 (10.8%) cases, IIA in 67 (27.9%) cases, IIB in 50 (20.8%) cases, IIIA in 59 (24.6%) cases, and IIIB in 38 (15.8%) cases. Metastatic disease was detected in 59 (24.6%) cases after median follow-up of 29 months (mean 42 months; range 1-195 months). Variables associated with metastasis included (in order of decreasing significance): GEP class (P = 1.5 × 10-8), largest basal tumor diameter (P = 2.5 × 10-6), PRAME status (P = 2.6 × 10-6), and TNM stage (P = 3.7 × 10-6). The prognostic accuracy of an optimized 3-category GEP/PRAME model (P = 8.6 × 10-14) was superior to an optimized TNM model (P = 1.3 × 10-5). CONCLUSIONS: In UM, molecular prognostic testing using GEP and PRAME provides prognostic accuracy that is superior to TNM staging.
Authors: J William Harbour; Michael D Onken; Elisha D O Roberson; Shenghui Duan; Li Cao; Lori A Worley; M Laurin Council; Katie A Matatall; Cynthia Helms; Anne M Bowcock Journal: Science Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: U Petrausch; P Martus; H Tönnies; N E Bechrakis; D Lenze; S Wansel; M Hummel; N Bornfeld; E Thiel; M H Foerster; U Keilholz Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Michael D Onken; Lori A Worley; Devron H Char; James J Augsburger; Zelia M Correa; Eric Nudleman; Thomas M Aaberg; Michael M Altaweel; David S Bardenstein; Paul T Finger; Brenda L Gallie; George J Harocopos; Peter G Hovland; Hugh D McGowan; Tatyana Milman; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; E Rand Simpson; Morton E Smith; David J Wilson; William J Wirostko; J William Harbour Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Lori A Worley; Michael D Onken; Erica Person; Diane Robirds; Julie Branson; Devron H Char; Arie Perry; J William Harbour Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matthew G Field; Christina L Decatur; Stefan Kurtenbach; Gülçin Gezgin; Pieter A van der Velden; Martine J Jager; Kaleigh N Kozak; J William Harbour Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: J William Harbour; Elisha D O Roberson; Hima Anbunathan; Michael D Onken; Lori A Worley; Anne M Bowcock Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-01-13 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Duncan E Berry; Amy C Schefler; Michael I Seider; Miguel Materin; Sandra Stinnett; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya Journal: Retina Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Saman S Ahmadian; Ian J Dryden; Andrea Naranjo; Angus Toland; Romain A Cayrol; Donald E Born; Peter S Egbert; Ryanne A Brown; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Jonathan H Lin Journal: Ocul Oncol Pathol Date: 2022-03-11
Authors: Mehdi Mazloumi; Pornpattana Vichitvejpaisal; Lauren A Dalvin; Antonio Yaghy; Kathryn G Ewens; Arupa Ganguly; Carol L Shields Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: James P Bolling; Roi Dagan; Michael Rutenberg; Maria Mamalui-Hunter; Steven J Buskirk; Michael G Heckman; Alexander P Hochwald; Roelf Slopsema Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-12-22
Authors: Duncan E Berry; Amy C Schefler; Michael I Seider; Miguel Materin; Sandra Stinnett; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya Journal: Retina Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.975
Authors: Bertil Damato; Antonio Eleuteri; Rumana Hussain; Helen Kalirai; Sophie Thornton; Azzam Taktak; Heinrich Heimann; Sarah E Coupland Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Gabriel Velez; Huy V Nguyen; Teja Chemudupati; Cassie A Ludwig; Marcus Toral; Sunil Reddy; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Vinit B Mahajan Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 27.401