A clinical impact study of dermatologists' use of diagnostic gene expression profile testing to guide patient management.

Aim: Cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms with diagnostic and/or clinical ambiguity pose patient management challenges. Methods: Six randomized case scenarios with diagnostic/clinical uncertainty were described with/without a benign or malignant diagnostic gene expression profile (GEP) result. Results: Clinical impact was assessed by reporting the mean increase/decrease of management changes normalized to baseline (n = 32 dermatologists). Benign GEP results prompted clinicians to decrease surgical margins (84.2%). Malignant GEP results escalated surgical excision recommendations (100%). A majority (72.2%) reduced and nearly all (98.9%) increased follow-up frequency for benign or malignant GEP results, respectively. There was an overall increase in management plan confidence with GEP results. Conclusion: Diagnostic GEP tests help guide clinical decision-making in a variety of diagnostically ambiguous or clinicopathologically discordant scenarios.

Dermatologists' use of diagnostic gene expression profiles for personalized patient care. When your doctor takes a piece of a mole, that mole is looked at under the microscope by a pathologist. The pathologist is responsible for figuring out if the mole is dangerous or not. Dangerous moles are removed with surgery to make sure all the dangerous tissue is gone. Moles without a health threat are left alone. Sometimes figuring out how dangerous a mole is is difficult. The pathologist may not provide the doctor with enough information for them to know how to treat your mole. There is a test that can provide information on whether your mole is unsafe. This test is called diagnostic gene expression profiling or GEP. In this study, GEP is used to help doctors figure out how to treat a mole and how often the patient should be seen in the office for skin checks. With GEP, important changes in patient treatment were identified. These include the need for an additional surgery, how much healthy tissue should be removed during surgery and how often the patient should be seen in the office. For suspicious moles where the pathology report is unclear, GEP can provide information that leads to more appropriate and personalized patient care.

Ancillary diagnostic gene expression profile testing for ambiguous cutaneous melanocytic lesions helps optimize dermatologist recommendations for excision margin and follow-up.

Integrating the 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test Improves Metastatic Risk-Stratification Within Clinically Relevant Subgroups of High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The validated 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test independently stratifies risk of regional or distant metastasis for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) tumors with high-risk clinicopathologic features. This study evaluated the stratification of risk by the 40-GEP test in a large cohort of tumors with one or more high-risk factors and in clinically relevant subgroups, including tumors within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high- and very-high-risk groups, lower-stage BWH T1 and T2a tumors, and patients > 65 years old. METHODS: This multicenter (n = 58) performance study of the 40-GEP included 897 patients. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess risk stratification profiles for 40-GEP Class 1 (low), Class 2A (higher) and Class 2B (highest) risk groups, while nested Cox regression models were used to compare risk prediction of clinicopathologic risk classification systems versus risk classification systems in combination with 40-GEP. RESULTS: Patients classified as 40-GEP Class 1, Class 2A, or Class 2B had significantly different metastatic risk profiles (p < 0.0001). Integrating 40-GEP results into models with individual clinicopathologic risk factors or risk classification systems (Brigham and Women's Hospital, American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition) and NCCN demonstrated significant improvement in accuracy for prediction of metastatic events (ANOVA for model deviance, p < 0.0001 for all models). CONCLUSION: The 40-GEP test demonstrates accurate, independent, clinically actionable stratification of metastatic risk and improves predictive accuracy when integrated into risk classification systems. The improved accuracy of risk assessment when including tumor biology via the 40-GEP test ensures more risk-aligned, personalized patient management decisions.

The 31-Gene Expression Profile Test Outperforms AJCC in Stratifying Risk of Recurrence in Patients with Stage I Cutaneous Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage I cutaneous melanoma (CM) are considered at low risk for metastasis or melanoma specific death; however, because the majority of patients are diagnosed with stage I disease, they represent the largest number of melanoma deaths annually. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test has been prospectively validated to provide prognostic information independent of staging, classifying patients as low (Class 1A), intermediate (Class 1B/2A), or high (Class 2B) risk of poor outcomes. METHODS: Patients enrolled in previous studies of the 31-GEP were combined and evaluated for recurrence-free (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) (n = 1261, "combined"). A second large, unselected real-world cohort (n = 5651) comprising clinically tested patients diagnosed 2013-2018 who were linked to outcomes data from the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries was evaluated for MSS. RESULTS: Combined cohort Class 1A patients had significantly higher RFS than Class 1B/2A or Class 2B patients (97.3%, 88.6%, 77.3%, p < 0.001)-better risk stratification than AJCC8 stage IA (97.5%) versus IB (89.3%). The SEER cohort showed better MSS stratification by the 31-GEP (Class 1A = 98.0%, Class 1B/2A = 97.5%, Class 2B = 92.3%; p < 0.001) than by AJCC8 staging (stage IA = 97.6%, stage IB = 97.9%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The 31-GEP test significantly improved patient risk stratification, independent of AJCC8 staging in patients with stage I CM. The 31-GEP provided greater separation between high- (Class 2B) and low-risk (Class 1A) groups than seen between AJCC stage IA and IB. These data support integrating the 31-GEP into clinical decision making for more risk-aligned management plans.

The Tissue Systems Pathology Test Outperforms Pathology Review in Risk Stratifying Patients With Low-Grade Dysplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low-grade dysplasia (LGD) is associated with an increased risk of progression in Barrett's esophagus (BE); however, the diagnosis of LGD is limited by substantial interobserver variability. Multiple studies have shown that an objective tissue systems pathology test (TissueCypher Barrett's Esophagus Test, TSP-9), can effectively predict neoplastic progression in patients with BE. This study aimed to compare the risk stratification performance of the TSP-9 test vs benchmarks of generalist and expert pathology. METHODS: A blinded cohort study was conducted in the screening cohort of a randomized controlled trial of patients with BE with community-based LGD. Biopsies from the first endoscopy with LGD were assessed by the TSP-9 test and independently reviewed by 30 pathologists from 5 countries per standard practice. The accuracy of the test and the diagnoses in predicting high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients with BE (122 men), mean age 60.9 ± 9.8 years were studied. Twenty-four patients progressed to HGD/EAC within 5 years (median time of 1.7 years) and 130 did not progress to HGD/EAC within 5 years (median 7.8 years follow-up). The TSP-9 test demonstrated higher sensitivity (71% vs mean 63%, range 33%-88% across 30 pathologists), than the pathology review in detecting patients who progressed (P = .01186). CONCLUSIONS: The TSP-9 test outperformed the pathologists in risk stratifying patients with BE with LGD. Care guided by the test can provide an effective solution to variable pathology review of LGD, improving health outcomes by upstaging care to therapeutic intervention for patients at high risk for progression, while reducing unnecessary interventions in low-risk patients.

A Tissue Systems Pathology Test Outperforms the Standard-of-Care Variables in Predicting Progression in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Objective risk stratification is needed for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) to enable risk-aligned management to improve health outcomes. This study evaluated the predictive performance of a tissue systems pathology [TSP-9] test (TissueCypher) vs current clinicopathologic variables in a multicenter cohort of patients with BE. METHODS: Data from 699 patients with BE from 5 published studies on the TSP-9 test were evaluated. Five hundred nine patients did not progress during surveillance, 40 were diagnosed with high-grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma (HGD/EAC) within 12 months, and 150 progressed to HGD/EAC after 12 months. Age, sex, segment length, hiatal hernia, original and expert pathology review diagnoses, and TSP-9 risk classes were collected. The predictive performance of clinicopathologic variables and the TSP-9 test was compared, and the TSP-9 test was evaluated in clinically relevant patient subsets. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the TSP-9 test in detecting progressors was 62.3% compared with 28.3% for expert-confirmed low-grade dysplasia (LGD), while the original diagnosis abstracted from medical records did not provide any significant risk stratification. The TSP-9 test identified 57% of progressors with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) ( P < 0.0001). Patients with NDBE who scored TSP-9 high risk progressed at a similar rate (3.2%/yr) to patients with expert-confirmed LGD (3.7%/yr). The TSP-9 test provided significant risk stratification in clinically low-risk patients (NDBE, female, short-segment BE) and clinically high-risk patients (IND/LGD, male, long-segment BE) ( P < 0.0001 for comparison of high-risk classes vs low-risk classes). DISCUSSION: The TSP-9 test predicts risk of progression to HGD/EAC independently of current clinicopathologic variables in patients with BE. The test provides objective risk stratification results that may guide management decisions to improve health outcomes for patients with BE.

31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration.

PURPOSE: The DecisionDx-Melanoma 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test is validated to classify cutaneous malignant melanoma (CM) patient risk of recurrence, metastasis, or death as low (class 1A), intermediate (class 1B/2A), or high (class 2B). This study aimed to examine the effect of 31-GEP testing on survival outcomes and confirm the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP at the population level. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III CM with a clinical 31-GEP result between 2016 and 2018 were linked to data from 17 SEER registries (n = 4,687) following registries' operation procedures for linkages. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS) differences by 31-GEP risk category were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression model to evaluate variables associated with survival. 31-GEP tested patients were propensity score-matched to a cohort of non-31-GEP tested patients from the SEER database. Robustness of the effect of 31-GEP testing was assessed using resampling. RESULTS: Patients with a 31-GEP class 1A result had higher 3-year MSS and OS than patients with a class 1B/2A or class 2B result (MSS: 99.7% v 97.1% v 89.6%, P < .001; OS: 96.6% v 90.2% v 79.4%, P < .001). A class 2B result was an independent predictor of MSS (HR, 7.00; 95% CI, 2.70 to 18.00) and OS (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.70). 31-GEP testing was associated with a 29% lower MSS mortality (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94) and 17% lower overall mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) relative to untested patients. CONCLUSION: In a population-based, clinically tested melanoma cohort, the 31-GEP stratified patients by their risk of dying from melanoma.

An Automated Tissue Systems Pathology Test Can Standardize the Management and Improve Health Outcomes for Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is associated with an increased risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, because of substantial interobserver variability in the diagnosis of LGD, a patient's management plan and health outcome depend largely on which pathologist reviews their case. This study evaluated the ability of a tissue systems pathology test that objectively risk stratifies patients with BE (TissueCypher, TSP-9) to standardize management in a manner consistent with improved health outcomes for patients with BE. METHODS: A total of 154 patients with BE with community-based LGD from the prospectively followed screening cohort of the SURF trial were studied. Management decisions were simulated 500 times with varying generalist (n = 16) and expert (n = 14) pathology reviewers to determine the most likely care plan with or without use of the TSP-9 test for guidance. The percentage of patients receiving appropriate management based on the known progression/nonprogression outcomes was calculated. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with 100% of simulations resulting in appropriate management significantly increased from 9.1% for pathology alone, to 58.4% when TSP-9 results were used with pathology, and further increased to 77.3% of patients receiving appropriate management when only TSP-9 results were used. Use of the test results also significantly increased the consistency of management decisions for patients when their slides were reviewed by different pathologists ( P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Management guided by the TSP-9 test can standardize care plans by increasing the early detection of progressors who can receive therapeutic interventions, while also increasing the percentage of nonprogressors who can avoid unnecessary therapy and be managed by surveillance alone.

Attitudes of patients with cutaneous melanoma toward prognostic testing using the 31-gene expression profile test.

OBJECTIVE: Although most patients diagnosed with early-stage cutaneous melanoma (CM) have excellent outcomes, because of the large number diagnosed each year, many will experience recurrence or death. Prognostic testing for CM using the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test can benefit patients by helping guide risk-appropriate treatment and surveillance plans. We sought to evaluate patients' attitudes toward prognostic testing with the 31-GEP and assess whether patients experience decision regret about having 31-GEP testing. METHODS: A 43-question survey was distributed by the Melanoma Research Foundation in June-August 2021 to CM patients enrolled in their database. Patients were asked questions regarding their decision to undergo 31-GEP testing and the extent to which they experienced decision regret using a validated set of Decision Regret Scale questions. RESULTS: We analyzed responses from patients diagnosed in 2014 or later (n  = 120). Of these, 28 had received 31-GEP testing. Most respondents (n  = 108, 90%) desired prognostic information when diagnosed. Of those who received 31-GEP testing, most felt the results were useful (n  = 22 out of 24) and had regret scores significantly less than neutral regret, regardless of their test results (Class 1: p  < 0.001; Class 2: p  = 0.036). Further, decision regret scores were not significantly different between patients who received a Class 1 31-GEP result and those who received a Class 2 result (mean Class 1 = 1.39 and mean Class 2 = 1.90, p  = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Most newly diagnosed CM patients desired prognostic information about their tumors. Patients who received 31-GEP testing felt it was useful and did not regret their decision to undergo 31-GEP testing.

Clinical Utility of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.

Objective: The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) can predict the risk of recurrence and metastasis in cutaneous melanoma (CM). We assessed the viewpoints and use of 31-GEP testing by physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) for patients with CM. Methods: NPs and PAs (n = 369) completed an 18-question online survey about their viewpoints and use of the 31-GEP risk-stratification test. Results: Most practitioners (n = 334, 90.5%) felt prognostic testing improved patient care and would recommend the 31-GEP to a colleague (n = 333, 90.2%) or a friend or family member (n = 289, 78.3%) who was diagnosed with CM. The 31-GEP test was used by 176 respondents in the preceding 12 months (53%). Among users of the 31-GEP test, 78% stated that the results would impact follow-up schedule and referral, 66% overall treatment decisions, 62% sentinel lymph node biopsy recommendations, and 50% surveillance imaging. In thin tumors (≤ 1 mm), 82% of 31-GEP users and 44% of nonusers stated that the 31-GEP results would impact their treatment plan decisions. Conclusion: The 31-GEP test significantly impacts treatment plans in CM, particularly for thin and stage I melanomas. Importantly, even nonusers stated that 31-GEP test results would impact treatment plans as well as recommendations to a friend or family member.

Real-World Evidence Shows Clinicians Appropriately Use the Prognostic 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test for High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients.

Treatment decisions for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are traditionally based upon clinicopathologic risk factors and staging systems. Due to the accuracy limitations of these resources in predicting poor outcomes, there is a clinically significant need for more accurate methods of risk assessment. The 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test was developed to augment metastatic risk prediction of high-risk cSCC patients and has been validated in two independent, multi-center studies involving over 1,000 patients. This study substantiates that the 40-GEP is appropriately utilized by clinicians and that the personalized risk-stratification results are impactful in guiding risk-aligned patient management.

Uveal melanoma patient attitudes towards prognostic testing using gene expression profiling.

Aim: This study explored uveal melanoma patient experiences and regret following molecular prognostic testing using a 15-gene expression profile (GEP) test. Materials & methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional survey study was conducted through an online questionnaire capturing patient-reported experiences with prognostic biopsy/molecular testing. Results: Of 177 respondents, 159 (90%) wanted prognostic information at diagnosis. Most 15-GEP-tested patients who shared their results (99%) reported gaining value from testing, as did patients tested with other methods. Patients who received prognostic testing experienced lower decision regret than those who opted out. Decision regret did not differ based on GEP class. Conclusion: Most uveal melanoma patients desire prognostic testing and gain value from the GEP, independent of a high- or low-risk result.

Uveal melanoma is a rare but aggressive eye cancer, resulting in distant metastasis in nearly 50% of patients. Molecular prognostic testing is often employed to determine who is at high or low risk of developing metastatic disease. A prognostic 15-gene expression profiling (GEP) test is commonly used throughout the USA and parts of Canada. The goal of this survey was to assess patient experiences with the 15-GEP and other prognostic methods. Of the 177 patients who participated in the survey, the majority reported that they wanted prognostic information at the time of diagnosis. Of patients who underwent 15-GEP testing, nearly all reported gaining value from their test result, regardless of their individual risk profile. This study supports prior findings using other prognostic methods that patients prefer information about their risk of metastasis and reinforces the importance of discussing prognostic testing options with newly diagnosed uveal melanoma patients.

Improved cutaneous melanoma survival stratification through integration of 31-gene expression profile testing with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Staging.

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) survival is assessed using averaged data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8). However, subsets of AJCC8 stages I-III have better or worse survival than the predicted average value. The objective of this study was to determine if the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for CM can further risk-stratify melanoma-specific mortality within each AJCC8 stage. This retrospective multicenter study of 901 archival CM samples obtained from patients with stages I-III CM assessed 31-GEP test predictions of 5-year melanoma-specific survival (MSS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. In stage I-III CM population, patients with a Class 2B result had a lower 5-year MSS (77.8%) than patients with a Class 1A result (98.7%) and log-rank testing demonstrated significant stratification of MSS [χ2 (2df, n = 901) = 99.7, P < 0.001). Within each stage, 31-GEP data provided additional risk stratification, including in stage I [χ2 (2df, n = 415) = 11.3, P = 0.004]. Cox regression multivariable analysis showed that the 31-GEP test was a significant predictor of melanoma-specific mortality (MSM) in patients with stage I-III CM [hazard ratio: 6.44 (95% confidence interval: 2.61-15.85), P < 0.001]. This retrospective study focuses on Class 1A versus Class 2B results. Intermediate results (Class 1B/2A) comprised 21.6% of cases with survival rates between Class 1A and 2B, and similar to 5-year MSS AJCC stage values. Data from the 31-GEP test significantly differentiates MSM into lower (Class 1A) and higher risk (Class 2B) groups within each AJCC8 stage. Incorporating 31-GEP results into AJCC8 survival calculations has the potential to more precisely assess survival and enhance management guidance.

Enhanced metastatic risk assessment in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with the 40-gene expression profile test.

Aim: To clinically validate the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients and evaluate coupling the test with individual clinicopathologic risk factor-based assessment methods. Patients & methods: In a 33-site study, primary tumors with known patient outcomes were assessed under clinical testing conditions (n = 420). The 40-GEP results were integrated with clinicopathologic risk factors. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed for metastasis. Results: The 40-GEP test demonstrated significant prognostic value. Risk classification was improved via integration of 40-GEP results with clinicopathologic risk factor-based assessment, with metastasis rates near the general cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma population for class 1 and ≥50% for class 2B. Conclusion: Combining molecular profiling with clinicopathologic risk factor assessment enhances stratification of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients and may inform decision-making for risk-appropriate management strategies.

Plain language summary Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is a common skin cancer, with approximately 2 million cases diagnosed each year in the USA. Because substantial numbers of patients experience metastasis, which can result in death, accurate metastatic risk assessment is important. Clinicians use clinicopathologic factors to determine risk for disease progression. However, traditional methods miss pinpointing many patients who experience metastasis and sometimes categorize patients as at risk who do not develop metastasis, indicating that additional tools are needed. A molecular test, the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP), was developed to predict metastatic risk based on the biology of the tumor. This study demonstrates that the 40-GEP, either as an independent tool or together with traditional methods, accurately identifies patients' risk of metastasis. Using the 40-GEP could improve patient management to improve patient outcomes.

The 31-gene expression profile stratifies recurrence and metastasis risk in patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Aim: Sentinel node biopsy is a prognostic indicator of melanoma recurrence. We hypothesized that adding the primary melanoma molecular signature from the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test could refine the risk of recurrence prognosis for patients with stage I-III melanoma. Materials & methods: Four hundred thirty-eight patients with stage I-III melanoma consecutively tested with the 31-GEP were retrospectively analyzed. The 31-GEP stratified patients as low-risk (Class 1A), intermediate-risk (Class 1B/2A) or high risk (Class 2B) of recurrence or metastasis. Results: The 31-GEP significantly stratified patient risk for recurrence-free survival (p < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (p < 0.001) and melanoma-specific survival (p < 0.001) and was a significant, independent predictor of metastatic recurrence (hazard ratio: 5.38; p = 0.014). Conclusion: The 31-GEP improves prognostic accuracy in stage I-III melanoma.

Lay abstract Cutaneous melanoma is a type of skin tumor affecting 100,000 new patients each year. Even with the best tools available today, knowing which patients will die from their cancer can be challenging. Using individual tumors from over 400 patients, we analyzed the expression of 31 genes from each tumor. Doing this helped us split the patients into groups who are more or less likely to die from their tumor. By combining this technique with current medical practices and guidelines, we hope to help identify which patients may or may not benefit from more intense therapies.