Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with surgical oncology practice within national guideline and staging recommendations.

Aim: Define changes in clinical management resulting from the use of the prognostic 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for cutaneous melanoma in a surgical oncology practice. Patients & methods: Management plans for 112 consecutively tested patients with stage I-III melanoma were evaluated for duration and number of clinical visits, blood work and imaging. Results: 31-GEP high-risk (class 2; n = 46) patients received increased management compared with low-risk (class 1; n = 66) patients. Test results were most closely associated with follow-up and imaging. Of class 1 patients, 65% received surveillance intensity within guidelines for stage I-IIA patients; 98% of class 2 patients received surveillance intensity equal to stage IIB-IV patients. Conclusion: We suggest clinical follow-up and metastatic screening be adjusted according to 31-GEP test results.

Identification of high-risk cutaneous melanoma tumors is improved when combining the online American Joint Committee on Cancer Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool with a 31-gene expression profile-based classification.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-defined early-stage cutaneous melanoma have disease recurrence and die. A 31-gene expression profile (GEP) that accurately assesses metastatic risk associated with primary cutaneous melanomas has been described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare accuracy of the GEP in combination with risk determined using the web-based AJCC Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool. METHODS: GEP results from 205 stage I/II cutaneous melanomas with sufficient clinical data for prognostication using the AJCC tool were classified as low (class 1) or high (class 2) risk. Two 5-year overall survival cutoffs (AJCC 79% and 68%), reflecting survival for patients with stage IIA or IIB disease, respectively, were assigned for binary AJCC risk. RESULTS: Cox univariate analysis revealed significant risk classification of distant metastasis-free and overall survival (hazard ratio range 3.2-9.4, P < .001) for both tools. In all, 43 (21%) cases had discordant GEP and AJCC classification (using 79% cutoff). Eleven of 13 (85%) deaths in that group were predicted as high risk by GEP but low risk by AJCC. LIMITATIONS: Specimens reflect tertiary care center referrals; more effective therapies have been approved for clinical use after accrual. CONCLUSIONS: The GEP provides valuable prognostic information and improves identification of high-risk melanomas when used together with the AJCC online prediction tool.

Validation of a Gene Expression Test for Mesothelioma Prognosis in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissues.

A molecular test performed using fresh-frozen tissue was proposed for use in the prognosis of patients with pleural mesothelioma. The accuracy of the test and its properties was assessed under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved guidelines using FFPE tissue from an independent multicenter patient cohort. Concordance studies were performed using matched frozen and FFPE mesothelioma samples. The prognostic value of the test was evaluated in an independent validation cohort of 73 mesothelioma patients who underwent surgical resection. FFPE-based classification demonstrated overall high concordance (83%) with the matched frozen specimens, on removal of cases with low confidence scores, showing sensitivity and specificity in predicting type B classification (poor outcome) of 43% and 98%, respectively. Concordance between research and clinical methods increased to 87% on removal of low confidence cases. Median survival times in the validation cohort were 18 and 7 months in type A and type B cases, respectively (P = 0.002). Multivariate classification adding pathologic staging information to the gene expression score resulted in significant stratification of risk groups. The median survival times were 52 and 14 months in the low-risk (class 1) and intermediate-risk (class 2) groups, respectively. The prognostic molecular test for mesothelioma can be performed on FFPE tissues to predict survival, and can provide an orthogonal tool, in combination with established pathologic parameters, for risk evaluation.

Clinical impact of a 31-gene expression profile test for cutaneous melanoma in 156 prospectively and consecutively tested patients.

OBJECTIVE: DecisionDx-Melanoma * is a 31-gene expression profile test that predicts the risk of metastasis in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma (CM). This study was designed to ascertain clinical management changes determined by the test outcome, which classifies CM patients being at low (Class 1) or high (Class 2) risk for recurrence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medical charts were reviewed from 156 CM patients from six institutions (three dermatology and three surgical oncology practices) who were consecutively tested between May 2013 and December 2015. Clinical management data that were compiled and compared before and after receipt of the 31-gene expression test result included frequency of physical exams, frequency and modality of imaging, and referrals to surgical and medical oncologists. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of patients were Stage I, 47% were Stage II and 8% were Stage III. Overall, 95 patients (61%) were Class 1 and 61 (39%) were Class 2. Documented changes in management were observed in 82 (53%) patients, with the majority of Class 2 patients (77%) undergoing management changes compared to 37% of Class 1 patients (p < 0.0001 by Fisher's exact test). The majority (77/82, 94%) of these changes were concordant with the risk indicated by the test result (p < 0.0001 by Fisher's exact test), with increased management intensity for Class 2 patients and reduced management intensity for Class 1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular risk classification by gene expression profiling has clinical impact and influences physicians to direct clinical management of CM patients. The vast majority of the changes implemented after the receipt of test results were reflective of the low or high recurrence risk associated with the patient's molecular classification. Because follow-up data was not collected for this patient cohort, the study is limited for the assessment of the impact of gene expression profile based management changes on healthcare resource utilization and patient outcome.

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

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 (∼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.

Development of a prognostic genetic signature to predict the metastatic risk associated with cutaneous melanoma.

PURPOSE: The development of a genetic signature for the identification of high-risk cutaneous melanoma tumors would provide a valuable prognostic tool with value for stage I and II patients who represent a remarkably heterogeneous group with a 3% to 55% chance of disease progression and death 5 years from diagnosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A prognostic 28-gene signature was identified by analysis of microarray expression data. Primary cutaneous melanoma tumor tissue was evaluated by RT-PCR for expression of the signature, and radial basis machine (RBM) modeling was performed to predict risk of metastasis. RESULTS: RBM analysis of cutaneous melanoma tumor gene expression reports low risk (class 1) or high risk (class 2) of metastasis. Metastatic risk was predicted with high accuracy in development (ROC = 0.93) and validation (ROC = 0.91) cohorts of primary cutaneous melanoma tumor tissue. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates in the development set were 100% and 38% for predicted classes 1 and 2 cases, respectively (P < 0.0001). DFS rates for the validation set were 97% and 31% for predicted classes 1 and 2 cases, respectively (P < 0.0001). Gene expression profile (GEP), American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, Breslow thickness, ulceration, and age were independent predictors of metastatic risk according to Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The GEP signature accurately predicts metastasis risk in a multicenter cohort of primary cutaneous melanoma tumors. Preliminary Cox regression analysis indicates that the signature is an independent predictor of metastasis risk in the cohort presented.