1
|
Podlipnik S, Martin BJ, Morgan-Linnell SK, Bailey CN, Siegel JJ, Petkov VI, Puig S. The 31-Gene Expression Profile Test Outperforms AJCC in Stratifying Risk of Recurrence in Patients with Stage I Cutaneous Melanoma. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:287. [PMID: 38254778 PMCID: PMC10814308 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Podlipnik
- Dermatology Department, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Valentina I. Petkov
- Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA;
| | - Susana Puig
- Dermatology Department, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ahmed K, Siegel JJ, Morgan‐Linnell SK, LiPira K. Attitudes of patients with cutaneous melanoma toward prognostic testing using the 31-gene expression profile test. Cancer Med 2022; 12:2008-2015. [PMID: 35915969 PMCID: PMC9883557 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/30/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Kyleigh LiPira
- Melanoma Research FoundationWashingtonDistrict of ColumbiaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Podlipnik S, Potrony M, Puig S. Genetic markers for characterization and prediction of prognosis of melanoma subtypes: a 2021 update. Ital J Dermatol Venerol 2021; 156:322-330. [PMID: 33982545 DOI: 10.23736/s2784-8671.21.06957-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
In this article we examined the most important genetic markers involved in melanoma susceptibility, initiation and progression, and their impact on the prognosis of the disease. Current knowledge in melanoma genetics identifies distinct pathways to the development of different melanoma subtypes characterized by specific clinico-pathological features and partially known genetic markers, modulated by high, low or absence of cumulative sun damage. The most prevalent somatic mutations are related to the activation of the MAPK pathway, which are classified into four major subtypes: BRAF mutant, NRAS mutant, NF1 mutant and triple wild type. Moreover, germinal mutations are also involved in the characterization and predictions of prognosis in melanoma. Currently, CDKN2A is seen as the main high-risk gene involved in melanoma susceptibility being mutated in around 20% of melanoma-prone families. Other high-risk susceptibility genes described include CDK4, POT1, BAP1, TERT promoter, ACD, and TERF2IP. Melanoma is one of the most genetically predisposed among all cancers in humans, and ultraviolet light from the sun is the main environmental factor. This genetic predisposition is starting to be understood, impacting not only on the risk of developing melanoma but also on the risk of developing other types of cancer, as well as on the prognosis of the disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Podlipnik
- Department of Dermatology, University of Barcelona, Hospital of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.,Unit of Melanoma, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Miriam Potrony
- Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Hospital of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Susana Puig
- Department of Dermatology, University of Barcelona, Hospital of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain - .,Unit of Melanoma, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Podlipnik S, Carrera C, Boada A, Richarz NA, López-Estebaranz JL, Pinedo-Moraleda F, Elosua-González M, Martín-González MM, Carrillo-Gijón R, Redondo P, Moreno E, Malvehy J, Puig S. Early outcome of a 31-gene expression profile test in 86 AJCC stage IB-II melanoma patients. A prospective multicentre cohort study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019; 33:857-862. [PMID: 30702163 PMCID: PMC6483866 DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2018] [Accepted: 01/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Background The clinical and pathological features of primary melanoma are not sufficiently sensitive to accurately predict which patients are at a greater risk of relapse. Recently, a 31‐gene expression profile (DecisionDx‐Melanoma) test has shown promising results. Objectives To evaluate the early prognostic performance of a genetic signature in a multicentre prospectively evaluated cohort. Methods Inclusion of patients with AJCC stages IB and II conducted between April 2015 and December 2016. All patients were followed up prospectively to assess their risk of relapse. Prognostic performance of this test was evaluated individually and later combined with the AJCC staging system. Prognostic accuracy of disease‐free survival was determined using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. Results of the gene expression profile test were designated as Class 1 (low risk) and Class 2 (high risk). Results Median follow‐up time was 26 months (IQR 22–30). The gene expression profile test was performed with 86 patients; seven had developed metastasis (8.1%) and all of them were in the Class 2 group, representing 21.2% of this group. Gene expression profile was an independent prognostic factor for relapse as indicated by multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusted for AJCC stages and age. Conclusions This prospective multicentre cohort study, performed in a Spanish Caucasian cohort, shows that this 31‐gene expression profile test could correctly identify patients at early AJCC stages who are at greater risk of relapse. We believe that gene expression profile in combination with the AJCC staging system could well improve the detection of patients who need intensive surveillance and optimize follow‐up strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Podlipnik
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C Carrera
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Boada
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - N A Richarz
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J L López-Estebaranz
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - F Pinedo-Moraleda
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - M Elosua-González
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - M M Martín-González
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
| | - R Carrillo-Gijón
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
| | - P Redondo
- Department of Dermatology, University Clinic of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - E Moreno
- Department of Dermatology, University Clinic of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - J Malvehy
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S Puig
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Engelhardt KE, Wayne JD, Bilimoria KY. Editorial: Should We Abandon TNM Staging in Favor of Gene Profiles in Node-Positive Melanoma? Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 24:3-5. [PMID: 27638680 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5576-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn E Engelhardt
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Department of Surgery and Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.,Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jeffrey D Wayne
- Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Karl Y Bilimoria
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Department of Surgery and Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. .,Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. .,Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. .,Northwestern Institute for Comparative Effectiveness Research (NICER) in Oncology, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|