Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31359351›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of clinical dermatology2019

Level of Evidence Review for a Gene Expression Profile Test for Cutaneous Melanoma.

Danielle P Dubin, Scott M Dinehart, Aaron S Farberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of clinical dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Temporal Recurrence of Cutaneous Melanoma: Analysis of a Case Series.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023
    Article
  3. Using Gene Expression Profiling to Personalize Skin Cancer Management.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Exosomes: Emerging Diagnostic and Therapeutic Targets in Cutaneous Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Danielle P DubinDepartment of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 234 East 85th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10028, USA. Danielle.Dubin@mountsinai.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-1609
Scott M DinehartArkansas Dermatology Skin Cancer Center, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Aaron S FarbergDepartment of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 234 East 85th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10028, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advent of molecular medicine may allow for individualized cancer prognostication, which should enable better clinical management and, hopefully, improve patient outcomes. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test is currently available for patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma; this test helps inform patients' individual treatment plans, especially when combined with traditional biomarkers.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to review the current literature and establish the level of evidence for a cutaneous melanoma 31-GEP test.

methodsA review of seven development and validation studies for the 31-GEP test was conducted. The respective strengths and weaknesses of each study were applied to the level of evidence criteria from major organizations that publish guidelines for melanoma management: American Joint Committee on Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Academy of Dermatology.

resultsEvaluating each study led to classifying the 31-GEP test as level I/II, I-IIIB, and IIA according to American Joint Committee on Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Academy of Dermatology criteria, respectively. This stands in contrast to the official unrated status conferred by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the II/IIIC rating designated by the American Academy of Dermatology.

conclusionsDifferences between the authors' findings and official published ratings may be attributed to chronological issues, as many of the studies were not yet published when the aforementioned organizations conducted their reviews. There was also difficulty in applying the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria to this prognostic test, as their guidelines were intended for evaluation of predictive markers. Nevertheless, based upon the most current data available, integration of the 31-GEP test into clinical practice may be warranted in certain clinical situations.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorClinical Decision-MakingDermatologyDisease-Free SurvivalEvidence-Based MedicineGene Expression ProfilingHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMedical OncologyMelanomaMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNeoplasm StagingPatient SelectionPrognosisSkin NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID31359351
PMCPMC6872504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.