Michael A Marchetti1,2, Daniel G Coit3, Stephen W Dusza1, Ashley Yu1, LaToya McLean3, Yinin Hu3, Japbani K Nanda1, Konstantina Matsoukas4, Silvia E Mancebo2,5, Edmund K Bartlett3. 1. Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Dermatology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York. 3. Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Library Services, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Dermatology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Abstract
Importance: The performance of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma is poorly characterized. Objective: To systematically assess the performance of commercially available GEP tests in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I or stage II disease. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprehensive searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted on December 12, 2019, for English-language studies of humans without date restrictions. Study Selection: Two reviewers identified GEP external validation studies of patients with localized melanoma. After exclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (8%; 5 assessing DecisionDx-Melanoma and 2 assessing MelaGenix) were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted using an adaptation of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS-PF). When feasible, meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed with the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and an adaptation of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients with or without melanoma recurrence correctly classified by the GEP test as being at high or low risk. Results: In the 7 included studies, a total of 1450 study participants contributed data (age and sex unknown). The performance of both GEP tests varied by AJCC stage. Of patients tested with DecisionDx-Melanoma, 623 had stage I disease (6 true-positive [TP], 15 false-negative, 61 false-positive, and 541 true-negative [TN] results) and 212 had stage II disease (59 TP, 13 FN, 78 FP, and 62 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, DecisionDx-Melanoma correctly classified 29% with stage I disease and 82% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 90% with stage I disease and 44% with stage II disease. Of patients tested with MelaGenix, 88 had stage I disease (7 TP, 15 FN, 15 FP, and 51 TN results) and 245 had stage II disease (59 TP, 19 FN, 95 FP, and 72 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, MelaGenix correctly classified 32% with stage I disease and 76% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 77% with stage I disease and 43% with stage II disease. Conclusions and Relevance: The prognostic ability of GEP tests among patients with localized melanoma varied by AJCC stage and appeared to be poor at correctly identifying recurrence in patients with stage I disease, suggesting limited potential for clinical utility in these patients.
Importance: The performance of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma is poorly characterized. Objective: To systematically assess the performance of commercially available GEP tests in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I or stage II disease. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprehensive searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted on December 12, 2019, for English-language studies of humans without date restrictions. Study Selection: Two reviewers identified GEP external validation studies of patients with localized melanoma. After exclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (8%; 5 assessing DecisionDx-Melanoma and 2 assessing MelaGenix) were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted using an adaptation of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS-PF). When feasible, meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed with the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and an adaptation of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients with or without melanoma recurrence correctly classified by the GEP test as being at high or low risk. Results: In the 7 included studies, a total of 1450 study participants contributed data (age and sex unknown). The performance of both GEP tests varied by AJCC stage. Of patients tested with DecisionDx-Melanoma, 623 had stage I disease (6 true-positive [TP], 15 false-negative, 61 false-positive, and 541 true-negative [TN] results) and 212 had stage II disease (59 TP, 13 FN, 78 FP, and 62 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, DecisionDx-Melanoma correctly classified 29% with stage I disease and 82% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 90% with stage I disease and 44% with stage II disease. Of patients tested with MelaGenix, 88 had stage I disease (7 TP, 15 FN, 15 FP, and 51 TN results) and 245 had stage II disease (59 TP, 19 FN, 95 FP, and 72 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, MelaGenix correctly classified 32% with stage I disease and 76% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 77% with stage I disease and 43% with stage II disease. Conclusions and Relevance: The prognostic ability of GEP tests among patients with localized melanoma varied by AJCC stage and appeared to be poor at correctly identifying recurrence in patients with stage I disease, suggesting limited potential for clinical utility in these patients.
Authors: Richard D Riley; Karel G M Moons; Kym I E Snell; Joie Ensor; Lotty Hooft; Douglas G Altman; Jill Hayden; Gary S Collins; Thomas P A Debray Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-01-30
Authors: Michael A Marchetti; Edmund K Bartlett; Stephen W Dusza; Christopher K Bichakjian Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-12-23 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Pedram Gerami; Robert W Cook; Jeff Wilkinson; Maria C Russell; Navneet Dhillon; Rodabe N Amaria; Rene Gonzalez; Stephen Lyle; Clare E Johnson; Kristen M Oelschlager; Gilchrist L Jackson; Anthony J Greisinger; Derek Maetzold; Keith A Delman; David H Lawson; John F Stone Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jill A Hayden; Danielle A van der Windt; Jennifer L Cartwright; Pierre Côté; Claire Bombardier Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jonathan S Zager; Brian R Gastman; Sancy Leachman; Rene C Gonzalez; Martin D Fleming; Laura K Ferris; Jonhan Ho; Alexander R Miller; Robert W Cook; Kyle R Covington; Kristen Meldi-Plasseraud; Brooke Middlebrook; Lewis H Kaminester; Anthony Greisinger; Sarah I Estrada; David M Pariser; Lee D Cranmer; Jane L Messina; John T Vetto; Jeffrey D Wayne; Keith A Delman; David H Lawson; Pedram Gerami Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 4.430
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
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
Authors: Edmund K Bartlett; Michael A Marchetti; Douglas Grossman; Susan M Swetter; Sancy A Leachman; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Stephen W Dusza; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; John M Kirkwood; Amy L Tin; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 4.339
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: Nicholas R Kurtansky; Stephen W Dusza; Allan C Halpern; Rebecca I Hartman; Alan C Geller; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Veronica M Rotemberg; Michael A Marchetti Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 7.590
Authors: Oliver J Wisco; Justin W Marson; Graham H Litchman; Nicholas Brownstone; Kyle R Covington; Brian J Martin; Ann P Quick; Jennifer J Siegel; Hillary G Caruso; Robert W Cook; Richard R Winkelmann; Darrell S Rigel Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.199
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