Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955141›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2018

Comparison of melanoma gene expression score with histopathology, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and SNP array for the classification of melanocytic neoplasms.

Julie D R Reimann, Sadia Salim, Elsa F Velazquez, Lu Wang, Kelly Morrissey Williams, Wendy L Flejter, Linda Brooke, Sujatha Sunder, Klaus J Busam

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Melanoma pathology: new approaches and classification.The British journal of dermatology · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Reply to Reimann et al.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Julie D R ReimannInform Diagnostics, Needham, MA, USA. Julie.reimann@informdx.com.
Sadia SalimInform Diagnostics, Needham, MA, USA.
Elsa F VelazquezInform Diagnostics, Needham, MA, USA.
Lu WangMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Kelly Morrissey WilliamsInform Diagnostics, Needham, MA, USA.
Wendy L FlejterInform Diagnostics, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Linda BrookeInform Diagnostics, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Sujatha SunderInform Diagnostics, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Klaus J BusamMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Tufts Medical Center · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While most melanomas can be distinguished from nevi by histopathology, the histology is ambiguous for some melanocytic tumors, contributing to diagnostic uncertainty. Therefore molecular assays, including FISH or SNP array, and more recently a gene expression test (myPath, Myriad Genetics) have been proposed to aid in the work-up of ambiguous tumors. Two hundred and sixty-eight prospectively submitted cases were gathered, with the goal of comparing the myPath assay to morphologic diagnosis in (1) morphologically unequivocal cases (198), and to morphologic diagnosis and FISH in (2) morphologically ambiguous cases (70). Melanoma FISH was performed using probes for 6p25, 6q23, 11q13, Cep6, 9p21, and Cep9 and scored according to established criteria. The myPath assay was scored by the manufacturer as benign, indeterminate, or malignant. In the unequivocal group, myPath assay showed 75% agreement with morphologic diagnosis, with 67% sensitivity and 81% specificity. In the ambiguous group, FISH and myPath showed 69% inter-test agreement. For these cases agreement with histopathologic interpretation was 84% for FISH and 74% for myPath. Sensitivity and specificity of FISH was 61 and 100%, 50 and 93% for myPath, respectively. Cases from both groups in which myPath was discordant with either morphologic diagnosis and/or FISH (81/268 cases), were submitted for evaluation by two experienced dermatopathologist and also by SNP-array. SNP-array results correlated better than FISH, which correlated better than myPath, with the morphologic interpretation. Our findings document that molecular diagnostics show good correlation with consensus diagnoses, but discordant results occur, and vary in level of correlation with consensus interpretations. Studies with long-term outcomes data within specific ambiguous lesion subsets are required to establish the accuracy of this test, as each molecular diagnostic technique has limitations based on both lack of clinical outcomes data in ambiguous melanocytic tumors and in terms of their sensitivity and specificity in melanocytic lesion subtypes.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMelanomaNevus, PigmentedPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29955141
PMCPMC6631355
OpenAlexW2810394694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.