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.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Genome-wide copy number variations as molecular diagnostic tool for cutaneous intermediate melanocytic lesions: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Pooled it
- Shaping Precision Medicine: The Journey of Sequencing Technologies Across Human Solid Tumors.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Appropriate Statistical Methods to Assess Cross-study Diagnostic 23-Gene Expression Profile Test Performance for Cutaneous Melanocytic Neoplasms.The American Journal of dermatopathology · 2024Article
- A clinical impact study of dermatologists' use of diagnostic gene expression profile testing to guide patient management.Melanoma management · 2024Article
- A Physician's Guide to the Use of Gene Expression Profile Ancillary Diagnostic Testing for Cutaneous Melanocytic Neoplasms.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023Review
- Advances in melanoma: epidemiology, diagnosis, and prognosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Dermatologic Disease-Directed Targeted Therapy (DDermatology and therapy · 2022Review
- Molecular Pathology of Skin Melanoma: Epidemiology, Differential Diagnostics, Prognosis and Therapy Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Diagnosis of melanoma by imaging mass spectrometry: Development and validation of a melanoma prediction model.Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2021Article
- Article
- Melanoma pathology: new approaches and classification.The British journal of dermatology · 2021Review
- Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Comparison of Immunohistochemistry for PRAME With Cytogenetic Test Results in the Evaluation of Challenging Melanocytic Tumors.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2020Article
- Reply to Reimann et al.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.