BACKGROUND: While patients with localized cutaneous melanoma (CM) generally have good five-year melanoma-specific survival rates, identifying patients with localized disease at a high risk of recurrence could allow them access to additional follow-up or surveillance. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the prognostic value of the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for the risk of recurrence in stage I CM patients according to 31-GEP main class (low risk: Class 1 vs. high-risk: Class 2) and the lowest and highest risk 31-GEP subclasses (Class 1A vs. Class 2B). METHODS: Data from a previously described meta-analysis detailing the 31-GEP results for patients with stage I CM (N = 623) were re-analyzed to determine 31-GEP accuracy. RESULTS: Patients with stage I CM and a Class 1 31-GEP result were less likely to have a recurrence (15/556; 2.7% vs. 6/67; 9.0%; p=0.018) than patients with a Class 2 result and had a higher five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (96% vs. 85%). Patients with a Class 2 result were 2.8 times as likely to experience a recurrence (positive likelihood ratio: 2.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.38-5.77). In a subset of patients with stage I CM stratified further into 31-GEP subclasses (n = 206), patients with a Class 1A result had a higher five-year RFS than those with a Class 2B result (98% vs. 73%). Patients with a Class 2B result were also 6.5 times as likely to experience a recurrence (positive likelihood ratio: 6.45; 95% confidence interval: 2.44-17.00) than those with a Class 1A result, and the 31-GEP had a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% confidence interval: 92.3%-98.4%). CONCLUSION: The 31-GEP test significantly differentiates between low and high recurrence risk in patients with stage I CM.
BACKGROUND: While patients with localized cutaneous melanoma (CM) generally have good five-year melanoma-specific survival rates, identifying patients with localized disease at a high risk of recurrence could allow them access to additional follow-up or surveillance. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the prognostic value of the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for the risk of recurrence in stage I CM patients according to 31-GEP main class (low risk: Class 1 vs. high-risk: Class 2) and the lowest and highest risk 31-GEP subclasses (Class 1A vs. Class 2B). METHODS: Data from a previously described meta-analysis detailing the 31-GEP results for patients with stage I CM (N = 623) were re-analyzed to determine 31-GEP accuracy. RESULTS: Patients with stage I CM and a Class 1 31-GEP result were less likely to have a recurrence (15/556; 2.7% vs. 6/67; 9.0%; p=0.018) than patients with a Class 2 result and had a higher five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (96% vs. 85%). Patients with a Class 2 result were 2.8 times as likely to experience a recurrence (positive likelihood ratio: 2.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.38-5.77). In a subset of patients with stage I CM stratified further into 31-GEP subclasses (n = 206), patients with a Class 1A result had a higher five-year RFS than those with a Class 2B result (98% vs. 73%). Patients with a Class 2B result were also 6.5 times as likely to experience a recurrence (positive likelihood ratio: 6.45; 95% confidence interval: 2.44-17.00) than those with a Class 1A result, and the 31-GEP had a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% confidence interval: 92.3%-98.4%). CONCLUSION: The 31-GEP test significantly differentiates between low and high recurrence risk in patients with stage I CM.
Authors: Darryl Schuitevoerder; Michael Heath; Robert W Cook; Kyle R Covington; Jeanine Fortino; Sancy Leachman; John T Vetto Journal: J Drugs Dermatol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 2.114
Authors: Lena A von Schuckmann; Maria Celia B Hughes; Reza Ghiasvand; Maryrose Malt; Jolieke C van der Pols; Vanessa L Beesley; Kiarash Khosrotehrani; B Mark Smithers; Adele C Green Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Julia Rockberg; Justyna M Amelio; Aliki Taylor; Leif Jörgensen; Peter Ragnhammar; Johan Hansson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 7.396
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: Bradley N Greenhaw; Kyle R Covington; Sarah J Kurley; Yildiray Yeniay; Nhat Anh Cao; Kristen M Plasseraud; Robert W Cook; Eddy C Hsueh; Brian R Gastman; Maria L Wei Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard A Scolyer; Kenneth R Hess; Vernon K Sondak; Georgina V Long; Merrick I Ross; Alexander J Lazar; Mark B Faries; John M Kirkwood; Grant A McArthur; Lauren E Haydu; Alexander M M Eggermont; Keith T Flaherty; Charles M Balch; John F Thompson Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Eddy C Hsueh; James R DeBloom; Jonathan Lee; Jeffrey J Sussman; Kyle R Covington; Brooke Middlebrook; Clare Johnson; Robert W Cook; Craig L Slingluff; Kelly M McMasters Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 17.388