4.6 Article

Gene expression profiling for molecular staging of cutaneous melanoma in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 780-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.01.009

Keywords

cutaneous melanoma; gene expression profiling; metastasis; prognostic; sentinel lymph node biopsy; staging

Categories

Funding

  1. Castle Biosciences Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A gene expression profile (GEP) test able to accurately identify risk of metastasis for patients with cutaneous melanoma has been clinically validated. Objective: We aimed for assessment of the prognostic accuracy of GEP and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) tests, independently and in combination, in a multicenter cohort of 217 patients. Methods: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed to assess the expression of 31 genes from primary melanoma tumors, and SLNB outcome was determined from clinical data. Prognostic accuracy of each test was determined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis of disease-free, distant metastasis-free, and overall survivals. Results: GEP outcome was a more significant and better predictor of each end point in univariate and multivariate regression analysis, compared with SLNB (P < .0001 for all). In combination with SLNB, GEP improved prognostication. For patients with a GEP high-risk outcome and a negative SLNB result, Kaplan-Meier 5-year disease-free, distant metastasis-free, and overall survivals were 35%, 49%, and 54%, respectively. Limitations: Within the SLNB-negative cohort of patients, overall risk of metastatic events was higher (similar to 30%) than commonly found in the general population of patients with melanoma. Conclusions: In this study cohort, GEP was an objective tool that accurately predicted metastatic risk in SLNB-eligible patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available