Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39470890›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Society of Surgical Oncology Consensus Statement: Assessing the Evidence for and Utility of Gene Expression Profiling of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.

Edmund K Bartlett, Cristina O'Donoghue, Genevieve Boland, Tawnya Bowles, Keith A Delman, Tina J Hieken, Marc Moncrieff, Sandra Wong, Richard L White, Giorgos Karakousis and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Melanoma: Overview and Updates.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors.

Edmund K BartlettMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Cristina O'DonoghueUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Genevieve BolandMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Tawnya BowlesIntermountain Medical Center, Murray, UT, USA.
Keith A DelmanEmory Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tina J HiekenMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Marc MoncrieffNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
Sandra WongEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Richard L WhiteAtrium Health, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Giorgos KarakousisHospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. giorgos.karakousis@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Society of Surgical Oncology Gene Expression Profiling Consensus Statement Work Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGene expression profiling (GEP) of primary cutaneous melanoma aims to offer prognostic and predictive information to guide clinical care. Despite limited evidence of clinical utility, these tests are increasingly incorporated into clinical care.

methodsA panel of melanoma experts from the Society of Surgical Oncology convened to develop recommendations regarding the use of GEP to guide management of patients with melanoma. The use of currently available GEP tests were evaluated in three clinical scenarios: (1) the utility in patient selection for sentinel lymph node biopsy; (2) the utility to guide surveillance; and (3) the utility to inform adjuvant therapy. As a basis for these recommendations, the panel performed a systematic review of the literature, including articles published from January 2012 until August 2023.

resultsAfter review of 137 articles, 50 met the inclusion criteria. These articles included evidence related to three available GEP tests: 31-GEP, CP-GEP, and 11-GEP. The consensus recommendations were finalized using a modified Delphi process. The panel found that current evidence often fails to account for known clinicopathologic risk factors and lacks high-level data. The panel recognizes that the study of GEP tests is still evolving. The integration of GEP into routine clinical practice for predicting sentinel lymph node status and patient prognosis in melanoma is therefore not currently recommended.

conclusionAt present, GEP should be considered primarily an investigational tool, ideally used in the context of clinical trials or specialized research settings.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorGene Expression ProfilingMelanomaPractice Guidelines as TopicSkin NeoplasmsSurgical OncologyConsensusCutaneous Malignant MelanomaHumansPrognosisSentinel Lymph Node BiopsySocieties, MedicalBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID39470890
PMCPMC11811439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.