ArticleBMC cancer2018
Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of Gene Expression Profile Tests for Prognosis in Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA dermatology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a melanoma helper peptide vaccine plus incomplete Freund's adjuvant, cyclophosphamide, and polyICLC (Mel63).Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2021Trial
- Review
- Surgical Management of Stage IV Melanoma: Clinical, Molecular, and Therapeutic Considerations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Evaluating LLMs in non-metastatic melanoma care: a comparative analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Circulating MicroRNAs: functional biomarkers for melanoma prognosis and treatment.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Society of Surgical Oncology Consensus Statement: Assessing the Evidence for and Utility of Gene Expression Profiling of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- The Prognostic Value of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Management of melanoma: can we use gene expression profiling to help guide treatment and surveillance?Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2024Review
- Clinical and Imaging Follow-Up for High-Risk Cutaneous Melanoma: Current Evidence and Guidelines.Cancers · 2024Review
- Review
- Article
- Commentary: Routine Imaging based on Gene Expression Profiling, a New Paradigm for the Era of Immunotherapy.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023Article
- Routine imaging guided by a 31-gene expression profile assay results in earlier detection of melanoma with decreased metastatic tumor burden compared to patients without surveillance imaging studies.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Review
- Considerations for adjuvant immunotherapy in stage II melanoma: KEYNOTE-716 and beyond.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- 31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- An update on methods for detection of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in melanoma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.