Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32745161›Full record

SynthesisJAMA dermatology2020

Performance of Gene Expression Profile Tests for Prognosis in Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Michael A Marchetti, Daniel G Coit, Stephen W Dusza, Ashley Yu, LaToya McLean, Yinin Hu, Japbani K Nanda, Konstantina Matsoukas, Silvia E Mancebo, Edmund K Bartlett

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. New Technologies in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Melanocytic Lesions.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Using Gene Expression Profiling to Personalize Skin Cancer Management.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael A MarchettiDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Daniel G CoitGastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Stephen W DuszaDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Ashley YuDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
LaToya McLeanGastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Yinin HuGastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Japbani K NandaDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Konstantina MatsoukasLibrary Services, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Silvia E ManceboDepartment of Dermatology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York.
Edmund K BartlettGastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USCornell University · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

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

Abstract

Importance: The performance of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma is poorly characterized. Objective: To systematically assess the performance of commercially available GEP tests in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I or stage II disease. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprehensive searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted on December 12, 2019, for English-language studies of humans without date restrictions. Study Selection: Two reviewers identified GEP external validation studies of patients with localized melanoma. After exclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (8%; 5 assessing DecisionDx-Melanoma and 2 assessing MelaGenix) were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted using an adaptation of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS-PF). When feasible, meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed with the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and an adaptation of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients with or without melanoma recurrence correctly classified by the GEP test as being at high or low risk. Results: In the 7 included studies, a total of 1450 study participants contributed data (age and sex unknown). The performance of both GEP tests varied by AJCC stage. Of patients tested with DecisionDx-Melanoma, 623 had stage I disease (6 true-positive [TP], 15 false-negative, 61 false-positive, and 541 true-negative [TN] results) and 212 had stage II disease (59 TP, 13 FN, 78 FP, and 62 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, DecisionDx-Melanoma correctly classified 29% with stage I disease and 82% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 90% with stage I disease and 44% with stage II disease. Of patients tested with MelaGenix, 88 had stage I disease (7 TP, 15 FN, 15 FP, and 51 TN results) and 245 had stage II disease (59 TP, 19 FN, 95 FP, and 72 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, MelaGenix correctly classified 32% with stage I disease and 76% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 77% with stage I disease and 43% with stage II disease. Conclusions and Relevance: The prognostic ability of GEP tests among patients with localized melanoma varied by AJCC stage and appeared to be poor at correctly identifying recurrence in patients with stage I disease, suggesting limited potential for clinical utility in these patients.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticBiopsyGene Expression ProfilingHumansMelanomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSkinSkin NeoplasmsReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID32745161
PMCPMC7391179
OpenAlexW3045751222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.