4.3 Article

Analytic validity of DecisionDx-Melanoma, a gene expression profile test for determining metastatic risk in melanoma patients

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13000-018-0690-3

Keywords

Gene expression profiling; DecisionDx-Melanoma; Cutaneous melanoma; Metastasis; Analytic validity; Technical success

Categories

Funding

  1. Castle Biosciences, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The DecisionDx-Melanoma test provides prognostic information for patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM). Using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumor tissue, the RT-PCR-based test classifies patients into a low-(Class 1) or high-risk (Class 2) category for recurrence based on expression of 31 genes. The current study was designed to assess the analytical validity of this test. Methods: Inter-assay, inter-instrument, and inter-operator studies were performed to evaluate reliability of the 31-gene expression test results, sample stability and reagent stability. From March 2013 through June 2016, the gene expression test was performed on 8244 CM tumors. De-identified data from Pathology Reports were used to assess technical success. Results: Robust sample and reagent stability was observed. Inter-assay concordance on 168 specimens run on 2 consecutive days was 99% and matched probability scores were significantly correlated (R-2 = 0.96). Inter-instrument concordance was 95%, and probability scores had a correlation R-2 of 0.99 (p < 0.001). From 8244 CM specimens submitted since 2013, 85% (7023) fulfilled pre-specified tumor content parameters. In these samples with sufficient tumor requirements, the technical success of the test was 98%. Conclusion: DecisionDx-Melanoma is a robust gene expression profile test that demonstrates strong reproducibility between experiments and has high technical reliability on clinical samples.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available