ArticleJCO precision oncology2021
Long-Term Outcomes in a Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Evaluating the Prognostic 31-Gene Expression Profile for Cutaneous Melanoma.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
An Ongoing, 5-year Post Market Study to Track Clinical Application of DecisionDx-Melanoma Gene Expression Profile (GEP) Assay Results and the Impact on Patient Outcomes and Health Economics
An Open, 5-year Registry Study to Track Clinical Application of DecisionDx-Melanoma Gene Expression Profile Assay Results and Associated Patient Outcomes
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- The integrated 31-gene expression profile test identifies low-risk patients with cutaneous melanoma who can forego the SLNB procedure: results from a prospective, multicenter trial.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Predictive models of melanoma metastasis based on dermatoscopy in an international retrospective human reader study.Nature communications · 2025Article
- 31-Gene expression profiling for cutaneous melanoma: an expert consensus panel.Dermatology online journal · 2025Review
- Prognostic Biomarkers in Evolving Melanoma Immunotherapy.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
- A prospective, multicenter analysis of the integrated 31-gene expression profile test for sentinel lymph node biopsy (i31-GEP for SLNB) test demonstrates reduced number of unnecessary SLNBs in patients with cutaneous melanoma.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Integrating cuproptosis- and ferroptosis-related gene signatures to predict prognosis, immunotherapy response, and drug sensitivity in patients with skin cutaneous melanoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- The Prognostic Value of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with clinical and pathologic features can provide personalized precision estimates for sentinel lymph node positivity: an independent performance cohort.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Use of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test to Aid in the Decision of Adjuvant Treatment of Cutaneous Melanoma.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Commentary: 31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023Article
- Prognostic gene expression profile testing to inform use of adjuvant therapy: A survey of melanoma experts.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Utility of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2023Article
- 31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Attitudes of patients with cutaneous melanoma toward prognostic testing using the 31-gene expression profile test.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Using Gene Expression Profiling to Personalize Skin Cancer Management.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022Review
- Article
- Molecular Pathology of Skin Melanoma: Epidemiology, Differential Diagnostics, Prognosis and Therapy Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Expert Consensus on the Use of Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Tests for the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus from the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group.Dermatology and therapy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent guidelines for postoperative management of patients with stage I-IIA cutaneous melanoma (CM) do not recommend routine cross-sectional imaging, yet many of these patients develop metastases. Methods that complement American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging are needed to improve identification and treatment of these patients. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test predicts metastatic risk as low (class 1) or high (class 2). Prospective analysis of CM outcomes was performed to test the hypotheses that the 31-GEP provides prognostic value for patients with stage I-III CM, and that patients with stage I-IIA melanoma and class 2 31-GEP results have metastatic risk similar to patients for whom surveillance is recommended. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo multicenter registry studies, INTEGRATE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02355574) and EXPAND (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02355587), were initiated under institutional review board approval, and 323 patients with stage I-III CM and median follow-up time of 3.2 years met inclusion criteria. Primary end points were 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS).
resultsThe 31-GEP was significant for RFS, DMFS, and OS in a univariate analysis and was a significant, independent predictor of RFS, DMFS, and OS in a multivariable analysis. GEP class 2 results were significantly associated with lower 3-year RFS, DMFS, and OS in all patients and those with stage I-IIA disease. Patients with stage I-IIA CM and a class 2 result had recurrence, distant metastasis, and death rates similar to patients with stage IIB-III CM. Combining 31-GEP results and AJCC staging enhanced sensitivity over each approach alone.
conclusionThese data provide a rationale for using the 31-GEP along with AJCC staging, and suggest that patients with stage I-IIA CM and a class 2 31-GEP signature may be candidates for more intense follow-up.
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.