T cell egress via lymphatic vessels is tuned by antigen encounter and limits tumor control.

Antigen-specific CD8+ T cell accumulation in tumors is a prerequisite for effective immunotherapy, and yet the mechanisms of lymphocyte transit are not well defined. Here we show that tumor-associated lymphatic vessels control T cell exit from tumors via the chemokine CXCL12, and intratumoral antigen encounter tunes CXCR4 expression by effector CD8+ T cells. Only high-affinity antigen downregulates CXCR4 and upregulates the CXCL12 decoy receptor, ACKR3, thereby reducing CXCL12 sensitivity and promoting T cell retention. A diverse repertoire of functional tumor-specific CD8+ T cells, therefore, exit the tumor, which limits the pool of CD8+ T cells available to exert tumor control. CXCR4 inhibition or loss of lymphatic-specific CXCL12 boosts T cell retention and enhances tumor control. These data indicate that strategies to limit T cell egress might be an approach to boost the quantity and quality of intratumoral T cells and thereby response to immunotherapy.

Examining the Role of Estheticians in Skin Cancer Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer are significant causes of mortality. Previous studies regarding skin cancer education in nonmedical professionals have shown increases in favorable attitudes and likelihood of approaching clients about concerning lesions with training. However, few studies have investigated the use of estheticians in skin cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop an education course to train estheticians to recognize concerning lesions, to assess the baseline knowledge of estheticians toward skin cancer detection, and to determine the effect that our curriculum has on lesion detection. METHODS: We administered an education course and corresponding cross-sectional surveys to estheticians to evaluate current knowledge and assess for improvements in attitudes and behaviors regarding skin cancer detection. RESULTS: Of 504 estheticians, most estheticians (85-98%) indicated the correct level of concern for "extremely concerning" lesions on pre- and post-training surveys. Estheticians were more likely to recommend that their client see a medical professional if they previously attended a course on skin cancer (p = 0.012) or had greater than 1 year of work experience (p < 0.001). After completion of the training module, most participants felt "very comfortable," suggesting that clients see a doctor for a suspicious lesion. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that estheticians are capable of indicating the appropriate level of concern for abnormal lesions. Estheticians may serve as a valuable screening partner for dermatologists in the detection of skin cancer.

A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based High School Melanoma Prevention Curricula.

Incorporation of melanoma prevention behaviors into daily lifestyles is difficult. Data suggest that high school educational programs on skin cancer prevention can be successful and should incorporate evidence-based teaching and learning strategies to achieve greatest impact. The goal of this systematic review is to describe evidence-based educational practices for a high-school melanoma curriculum through a comprehensive review of the literature. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PyscINFO were searched in June 2020 for all original articles published between June 18, 1946 and June 17, 2020. All studies that used an educational curriculum to promote sun safety, skin exams, and early detection to high school students were included. A total of 25 studies with 22,683 adolescent participants were analyzed. Sixteen studies showed a significant increase in knowledge, twenty-one studies showed changes in behavior, and fifteen studies showed significant changes in attitudes. Limitations of this review include the heterogeneity of implementation and outcome reporting of educational curricula. These findings support incorporating active learning strategies as key aspects of creating an effective curriculum aimed at the prevention and early detection of melanoma.

Clinically Significant Risk Thresholds in the Management of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma: A Survey of Melanoma Experts.

BACKGROUND: Risk-based thresholds to guide management are undefined in the treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma but are essential to advance the field from traditional stage-based treatment to more individualized care. METHODS: To estimate treatment risk thresholds, hypothetical clinical melanoma scenarios were developed and a stratified random sample was distributed to expert melanoma clinicians via an anonymous web-based survey. Scenarios provided a defined 5-year risk of recurrence and asked for recommendations regarding clinical follow-up, imaging, and adjuvant therapy. Marginal probability of response across the spectrum of 5-year recurrence risk was estimated. The risk at which 50% of respondents recommended a treatment was defined as the risk threshold. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 56% (89/159). Three separate multivariable models were constructed to estimate the recommendations for clinical follow-up more than twice/year, for surveillance cross-sectional imaging at least once/year, and for adjuvant therapy. A 36% 5-year risk of recurrence was identified as the threshold for recommending clinical follow-up more than twice/year. The thresholds for recommending cross-sectional imaging and adjuvant therapy were 30 and 59%, respectively. Thresholds varied with the age of the hypothetical patient: at younger ages they were constant but increased rapidly at ages 60 years and above. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, these data provide the first estimates of clinically significant treatment thresholds for patients with cutaneous melanoma based on risk of recurrence. Future refinement and adoption of thresholds would permit assessment of the clinical utility of novel prognostic tools and represents an early step toward individualizing treatment recommendations.

Interactive Beliefs about Genes and Behavior Predict Improved Sun Protection Following Melanoma Genetic Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how members of cancer-prone families think about genetic determinism and whether personal behavior can amplify or counter genetic risk for disease. PURPOSE: Understanding how people think about the impact of personal behavior on disease risk may inform communications about genetic risks and their management. METHODS: We assessed three sets of beliefs about the impact of behavior on genetic risk-interactive (unhealthful behaviors can amplify genetic risk), subtractive (healthful behaviors can reduce genetic risk), and deterministic (genes primarily determine health outcomes)-among 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families receiving genetic counseling (51.6% men, average age = 35.3). We examined whether these beliefs predicted changes in perceived control, motivation to manage melanoma risk, and sun-protection behavior one year later. RESULTS: Participants strongly endorsed interactive and subtractive beliefs, but not deterministic beliefs. These beliefs generally did not change, even among those who received positive CDKN2A/p16 genetic test results conferring up to 76% lifetime melanoma risk. Controlling for age, sex, education, skin type, and genetic test result, interactive beliefs predicted sustained increases in perceptions of personal control, motivation to reduce sun exposure, use of multiple sun-protection methods, and reduction in objectively assessed tanning at the wrist one year following genetic counseling. Subtractive beliefs predicted increased personal control, motivation to manage risk, and sunscreen use, while deterministic beliefs were generally unrelated to outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among people at highly elevated hereditary cancer risk, beliefs that unhealthful behaviors can amplify genetic risk seem to be especially motivating of behavioral risk-reduction efforts.

Impact of novel systemic therapies on the first-year costs of care for melanoma among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, the therapeutic landscape of melanoma has changed dramatically because of the adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapies. The authors sought to quantify the effects of these changes on short-term treatment costs by comparing the first-year cancer-attributable costs in novel (2011-2015) and historical (2004-2010) treatment eras. METHODS: The authors estimated the first-year cancer-attributable and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs by cancer stage at diagnosis by using a case-control approach. Patients aged ≥67 years with melanoma results were used to calculate the total direct costs of treatment during the first year after the diagnosis of melanoma in the US Medicare population older than 65 years. Costs were reported in 2018 dollars. RESULTS: Costs increased with the stage at diagnosis. Average first-year cancer-attributable costs per patient for stage IV patients increased significantly by 61.7% from $45,952 to $74,297 after the adoption of novel treatments. Per-patient OOP responsibility decreased by almost 30.8% across all stages of cancer but increased by 16.5% for stage IV patients from 2004 ($7646) to 2015 ($8911). The total direct cost of treatment for persons with melanoma older than 65 years increased by $16.03 million (4.93%) from $324.68 million in 2010 to $340.71 million in 2015. The largest increase in yearly total cost, $23.64 million (56.53%), was observed among stage IV patients. CONCLUSIONS: The direct cost of melanoma increased significantly in the Medicare population, particularly for advanced-stage disease. Prevention and early detection initiatives may reduce the economic burden of melanoma.

Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Understanding multiple components of risk perceptions is important because perceived risk predicts engagement in prevention behaviors. PURPOSE: To examine how multiple components of risk perceptions (perceived magnitude of and worry about risk, prioritization of the management of one's risk) changed following genetic counseling with or without test reporting, and to examine which of these components prospectively predicted improvements in sun-protection behavior 1 year later. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. Participants were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families who (i) underwent genetic testing for a CDKN2A/p16 mutation (n = 69) or (ii) were at comparably elevated risk based on family history and underwent genetic counseling but not testing (no-test controls, n = 45). Participants reported risk perception components and sun-protection behavior at baseline, immediately following counseling, and 1 month and 1 year after counseling. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated three risk components. Carriers reported increased perceived magnitude and priority of risk, but not cancer worry. No-test controls showed no changes in any risk perception. Among noncarriers, priority of risk remained high at all assessments, whereas magnitude of risk and cancer worry decreased. Of the three risk components, greater priority of risk uniquely predicted improved self-reported sun protection 1 year post-counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Priority of risk (i) seems to be a component of risk perceptions distinguishable from magnitude of risk and cancer worry, (ii) may be an important predictor of daily prevention behavior, and (iii) remained elevated 1 year following genetic counseling only for participants who received a positive melanoma genetic test result.

Clinical challenges in interpreting multiple pathogenic mutations in single patients.

BACKGROUND: In the past two decades, genetic testing for cancer risk assessment has entered mainstream clinical practice due to the availability of low-cost panels of multiple cancer-associated genes. However, the clinical value of multiple-gene panels for cancer susceptibility is not well established, especially in cases where panel testing identifies more than one pathogenic variant. The risk for specific malignancies as a result of a mutated gene is complex and likely influenced by superimposed modifier variants and/or environmental effects. Recent data suggests that the combination of multiple pathogenic variants may be fewer than reported by chance, suggesting that some mutation combinations may be detrimental. Management of patients with "incidentally" discovered mutations can be particularly challenging, especially when established guidelines call for radical procedures (e.g. total gastrectomy in CDH1) in patients and families without a classic clinical history concerning for that cancer predisposition syndrome. CASE PRESENTATION: We present two cases, one of an individual and one of a family, with multiple pathogenic mutations detected by multi-gene panel testing to highlight challenges practitioners face in counseling patients about pathogenic variants and determining preventive and therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing investigation is needed to improve our understanding of inherited susceptibility to disease in general and cancer predisposition syndromes, as this information has the potential to lead to the development of more precise and patient-specific counseling and surveillance strategies. The real-world adoption of new or improved technologies into clinical practice frequently requires medical decision-making in the absence of established understanding of gene-gene interactions. In the meantime, practitioners must be prepared to apply a rationale based on currently available knowledge to clinical decision-making. Current practice is evolving to rely heavily on clinical concordance with personal and family history in making specific therapeutic decisions.

CDKN2A testing and genetic counseling promote reductions in objectively measured sun exposure one year later.

PURPOSE: This study investigated whether genetic counseling and test reporting for the highly penetrant CDKN2A melanoma predisposition gene promoted decreases in sun exposure. METHODS: A prospective, nonequivalent control group design compared unaffected participants (N = 128, Mage = 35.24, 52% men) from (1) families known to carry a CDKN2A pathogenic variant, who received counseling about management recommendations and a positive or negative genetic test result and (2) no-test control families known not to carry a CDKN2A pathogenic variant, who received equivalent counseling based on their comparable family history. Changes in daily ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure (J/m2), skin pigmentation (melanin index), and sunburns between baseline and one year following counseling were compared among carriers (n = 32), noncarriers (n = 46), and no-test control participants (n = 50). RESULTS: Both carriers and no-test control participants exhibited a decrease one year later in daily UVR dose (B = -0.52, -0.33, p < 0.01). Only carriers exhibited a significant decrease in skin pigmentation at the wrist one year later (B = -0.11, p < 0.001), and both carriers and no-test control participants reported fewer sunburns than noncarriers (p < 0.05). Facial pigmentation did not change for any group. Noncarriers did not change on any measure of UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the clinical utility of disclosing CDKN2A test results and providing risk management education to high-risk individuals.

A pilot study of a telehealth family-focused melanoma preventive intervention for children with a family history of melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Melanoma preventive interventions for children with familial risk are critically needed because ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure and sunburn occurrence early in life are the primary modifiable risk factors for melanoma. The current study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a new, family-focused telehealth intervention for children with familial risk for melanoma and their parents. The study also explored changes in child sun protection and risk behaviors, sunburn occurrence, and objectively measured UVR exposure. METHODS: This was a prospective study with a single-group design (n = 21 parent-child dyads, children ages 8-17). Dyads were asked to participate in three in-person assessments and three live video teleconference intervention sessions. RESULTS: The intervention was feasibly delivered, and the intervention content was acceptable to parents and children. The intervention was associated with improvements in child use of certain sun protection strategies over time and declines in child UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A telehealth-delivered,family-focused melanoma preventive intervention was feasibly delivered and was acceptable to parent-child dyads. Future melanoma preventive interventions for this at-risk population could incorporate eHealth technologies to facilitate improvements in use of sun protection and monitoring of UVR exposure. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02846714.

Understanding Skin Screening Practices Among Children at Elevated Risk for Melanoma to Inform Interventions for Melanoma Prevention and Control.

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer. Screening can aid in early disease detection, when treatment is more effective. Although there are currently no consensus guidelines regarding skin screening for pediatric populations with elevated familial risk for melanoma, at-risk children with the help of their parents and healthcare providers may implement skin self-exams. Healthcare providers may also recommend screening practices for these children. The goal of the current study was to describe current screening behaviors and provider recommendation for screening among children of melanoma survivors. Parents of children with a family history of melanoma completed a questionnaire that included items on children's screening frequency, thoroughness, and who performed the screening. Seventy-four percent of parents reported that their children (mean age = 9.0 years, SD = 4.8) had engaged in parent-assisted skin self-exams (SSEs) in the past 6 months. Only 12% of parents reported that children received SSEs once per month (the recommended frequency for adult melanoma survivors). In open-ended responses, parents reported that healthcare providers had provided recommendations around how to conduct SSEs, but most parents did not report receiving information on recommended SSE frequency. Twenty-six percent of parents (n = 18) reported that children had received a skin exam by a healthcare provider in the past 6 months. The majority of children with a family history of melanoma are reportedly engaging in skin exams despite the lack of guidelines on screening in this population. Future melanoma preventive interventions should consider providing families guidance about implementing screening with their children.

Chemoprevention agents for melanoma: A path forward into phase 3 clinical trials.

Recent progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma has led to unprecedented improvements in overall survival and, as these new melanoma treatments have been developed and deployed in the clinic, much has been learned about the natural history of the disease. Now is the time to apply that knowledge toward the design and clinical evaluation of new chemoprevention agents. Melanoma chemoprevention has the potential to reduce dramatically both the morbidity and the high costs associated with treating patients who have metastatic disease. In this work, scientific and clinical melanoma experts from the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group, composed of National Cancer Trials Network investigators, discuss research aimed at discovering and developing (or repurposing) drugs and natural products for the prevention of melanoma and propose an updated pipeline for translating the most promising agents into the clinic. The mechanism of action, preclinical data, epidemiological evidence, and results from available clinical trials are discussed for each class of compounds. Selected keratinocyte carcinoma chemoprevention studies also are considered, and a rationale for their inclusion is presented. These data are summarized in a table that lists the type and level of evidence available for each class of agents. Also included in the discussion is an assessment of additional research necessary and the likelihood that a given compound may be a suitable candidate for a phase 3 clinical trial within the next 5 years.

Identification of patients at risk of metastasis using a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in subpopulations of melanoma patients with favorable outcomes by standard criteria.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients who relapse and die from cutaneous melanoma (CM) are categorized as being at low risk by traditional staging factors. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test independently stratifies metastatic risk of patients with CM as low (Class 1, with 1A indicating lowest risk) or high (Class 2,with 2B indicating highest risk). OBJECTIVE: To assess risk prediction by the 31-GEP test within 3 low-risk (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer) populations of patients with CM: those who are sentinel lymph node (SLN) negative, those with stage I to IIA tumors, and those with thin (≤1 mm [T1]) tumors. METHODS: A total of 3 previous validation studies provided a nonoverlapping cohort of 690 patients with 31-GEP results, staging information, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: The results included the identification of 70% of SLN-negative patients who experienced metastasis as Class 2, the discovery of reduced recurrence-free survival for patients with thin tumors and Class 2B biology compared with that of those with Class 1A biology (P < .0001); and determination of the 31-GEP test as an independent predictor of risk compared with traditional staging factors in patients with stage I to IIA tumors. LIMITATIONS: Diagnoses spanned multiple versions of pathologic staging criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The 31-GEP test identifies high-risk patients who are likely to experience recurrence or die of melanoma within low-risk groups of subpopulations of patients with CM who have SLN-negative disease, stage I to IIA tumors, and thin tumors.

Guidance of sentinel lymph node biopsy decisions in patients with T1-T2 melanoma using gene expression profiling.

AIM: Can gene expression profiling be used to identify patients with T1-T2 melanoma at low risk for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity? PATIENTS & METHODS: Bioinformatics modeling determined a population in which a 31-gene expression profile test predicted <5% SLN positivity. Multicenter, prospectively-tested (n = 1421) and retrospective (n = 690) cohorts were used for validation and outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients 55-64 years and ≥65 years with a class 1A (low-risk) profile had SLN positivity rates of 4.9% and 1.6%. Class 2B (high-risk) patients had SLN positivity rates of 30.8% and 11.9%. Melanoma-specific survival was 99.3% for patients ≥55 years with class 1A, T1-T2 tumors and 55.0% for class 2B, SLN-positive, T1-T2 tumors. CONCLUSION: The 31-gene expression profile test identifies patients who could potentially avoid SLN biopsy.

Immunohistochemical characterization of benign activation of junctional melanocytes and melanoma in situ of the nail unit.

BACKGROUND: Immunohistochemical (IHC) stains that distinguish benign, pigmented nail lesions from malignancy are needed. Candidate markers of malignant transformation include p16, HMB45, and Ki-67, with p16 being of particular interest. There is limited knowledge about the spectrum of p16 expression in pigmented lesions, especially junctional melanocytic proliferations of the nail. The objective of this study was to determine if any of these markers demonstrate diagnostic utility in distinguishing between benign activation of junctional melanocytes (BAM) and melanoma in situ (MIS) of the nail unit. METHODS: In this retrospective study, ten cases of BAM and eight cases of MIS were identified. Archival slides available for review included H&E (hematoxylin and eosin), Fontana-Masson, and MelanA (Mart1) IHC slides. IHC studies for p16, HMB45, and dual-color Ki-67/MelanA (Mart1) were then performed. RESULTS: None of the tested IHC stains distinguished BAM from MIS. p16 IHC expression was uniformly negative with the exception of two cases of MIS. HMB45 was positive in all BAM and MIS cases. Ki-67/MelanA showed positive Ki-67 staining of MelanA-positive melanocytes in two cases of MIS, and all other cases of MIS and BAM were negative for Ki-67. The two positive p16 and two positive Ki-67/MelanA cases were non-overlapping. CONCLUSION: p16, HMB45, and Ki-67/MelanA IHC studies show no apparent utility in distinguishing BAM from MIS in the nail unit.

Parent and child perspectives on perceived barriers to child sun protection and their association with sun protection strategies among children of melanoma survivors.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Children with an elevated familial risk for melanoma inconsistently implement sun protection behaviors that could mitigate their melanoma risk. Little is known about perceived barriers to child sun protection among this at-risk group and their parents, and the extent to which perceived barriers are associated with child sun protection. The goal of this study was to examine, among children with a family history of melanoma, the frequency with which children and their parents reported barriers to child sun protection and the extent to which barriers were associated with reported use of sun protection among children. METHODS: Children with a family history of melanoma and their parents completed questionnaires assessing perceived barriers and reported child use of sun protection. RESULTS: Common barriers to child sun protection included being bothered by implementing the behavior or forgetting. A greater number of perceived barriers were associated with less frequent child use of sunscreen, long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and shade. CONCLUSIONS: Children at elevated risk for melanoma due to a family history of the disease and their parents perceive multiple barriers to sun protection that are associated with children's use of these melanoma preventive behaviors. Sun protection interventions for this at-risk population could provide families with specific strategies to address common barriers to implementing child sun protection.

Identification, genetic testing, and management of hereditary melanoma.

Several distinct melanoma syndromes have been defined, and genetic tests are available for the associated causative genes. Guidelines for melanoma genetic testing have been published as an informal "rule of twos and threes," but these guidelines apply to CDKN2A testing and are not intended for the more recently described non-CDKN2A melanoma syndromes. In order to develop an approach for the full spectrum of hereditary melanoma patients, we have separated melanoma syndromes into two types: "melanoma dominant" and "melanoma subordinate." Syndromes in which melanoma is a predominant cancer type are considered melanoma dominant, although other cancers, such as mesothelioma or pancreatic cancers, may also be observed. These syndromes are associated with defects in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, MITF, and POT1. Melanoma-subordinate syndromes have an increased but lower risk of melanoma than that of other cancer(s) seen in the syndrome, such as breast and ovarian cancer or Cowden syndrome. Many of these melanoma-subordinate syndromes are associated with well-established predisposition genes (e.g., BRCA1/2, PTEN). It is likely that these predisposition genes are responsible for the increased susceptibility to melanoma as well but with lower penetrance than that observed for the dominant cancer(s) in those syndromes. In this review, we describe our extension of the "rule of twos and threes" for melanoma genetic testing. This algorithm incorporates an understanding of the spectrum of cancers and genes seen in association with melanoma to create a more comprehensive and tailored approach to genetic testing.

Melanoma risk assessment based on relatives' age at diagnosis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine risk for melanoma among individuals who have a first- or second-degree relative with a history of melanoma, based on the unaffected individual's age and age at diagnosis of the relative. METHODS: The study employed a case-control design using a statewide database linked with a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry. A population-based sample of individuals who received at least one diagnosis of first primary, malignant melanoma (n = 14,281), as well as their first- and second-degree relatives, was included. Control individuals with no history of melanoma (n = 70,889) were matched to cases on birth year, gender, race/ethnicity, and county at birth. RESULTS: Risk for melanoma among relatives of melanoma patients declined with relative's age and age at diagnosis. Individuals between ages 40 and 49 who are first-degree relatives of melanoma patients diagnosed between ages 40 and 49 had the greatest risk for melanoma compared with individuals without a first-degree relative with a melanoma history (HR 4.89; 95% CI 3.11-7.68). Increased melanoma risk among second-degree relatives of patients was typically lower than that for first-degree relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for melanoma, at earlier ages than expected, is increased among relatives of individuals with a history of melanoma, particularly if the melanoma case was diagnosed at a young age. Further research on the relationship between age at diagnosis and relative's melanoma risk could inform melanoma screening recommendations for individuals with a family history of the disease.

Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneous behavior of patients with melanoma makes prognostication challenging. To address this, a gene expression profile (GEP) test to predict metastatic risk was previously developed. This study evaluates the GEP's prognostic accuracy in an independent cohort of cutaneous melanoma patients. METHODS: This multi-center study analyzed primary melanoma tumors from 523 patients, using the GEP to classify patients as Class 1 (low risk) and Class 2 (high risk). Molecular classification was correlated to clinical outcome and assessed along with AJCC v7 staging criteria. Primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS) and distant metastasis-free (DMFS) survival. RESULTS: The 5-year RFS rates for Class 1 and Class 2 were 88% and 52%, respectively, and DMFS rates were 93% versus 60%, respectively (P < 0.001). The GEP was a significant predictor of RFS and DMFS in univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4 and 6.6, respectively, P < 0.001 for each), along with Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) status (P < 0.001 for each). GEP, tumor thickness and SLN status were significant predictors of RFS and DMFS in a multivariate model that also included ulceration and mitotic rate (RFS HR = 2.1, 1.2, and 2.5, respectively, P < 0.001 for each; and DMFS HR = 2.7, 1.3 and 3.0, respectively, P < 0.01 for each). CONCLUSIONS: The GEP test is an objective predictor of metastatic risk and provides additional independent prognostic information to traditional staging to help estimate an individual's risk for recurrence. The assay identified 70% of stage I and II patients who ultimately developed distant metastasis. Its role in consideration of patients for adjuvant therapy should be examined prospectively.