Risk Stratification of Patients with Stage I Cutaneous Melanoma Using 31-Gene Expression Profiling.

Brian J Martin, Kyle R Covington, Ann P Quick, Robert W Cook

Open access · greenAbstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

2citing papers in PubMed

0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

Ocular Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review with a Focus on Molecular Biology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
Review
31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration.JCO precision oncology · 2023
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brian J MartinAll authors are employees with Castle Biosciences, Inc. in Friendswood, Texas.

Kyle R CovingtonAll authors are employees with Castle Biosciences, Inc. in Friendswood, Texas.

Ann P QuickAll authors are employees with Castle Biosciences, Inc. in Friendswood, Texas.

Robert W CookAll authors are employees with Castle Biosciences, Inc. in Friendswood, Texas.

Friends United · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile patients with localized cutaneous melanoma (CM) generally have good five-year melanoma-specific survival rates, identifying patients with localized disease at a high risk of recurrence could allow them access to additional follow-up or surveillance.

objectiveWe sought to examine the prognostic value of the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for the risk of recurrence in stage I CM patients according to 31-GEP main class (low risk: Class 1 vs. high-risk: Class 2) and the lowest and highest risk 31-GEP subclasses (Class 1A vs. Class 2B).

methodsData from a previously described meta-analysis detailing the 31-GEP results for patients with stage I CM (N = 623) were re-analyzed to determine 31-GEP accuracy.

resultsPatients with stage I CM and a Class 1 31-GEP result were less likely to have a recurrence (15/556; 2.7% vs. 6/67; 9.0%;

conclusionThe 31-GEP test significantly differentiates between low and high recurrence risk in patients with stage I CM.

Indexed as

31-gene expression profileAmerican Joint Committee on Cancercutaneous melanomastage I cutaneous melanoma

Identifiers

PMID34980974

PMCPMC8675338

OpenAlexW4206886454

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.