ReviewCancers2024
The Prognostic Value of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Management of Stage IV Melanoma: Clinical, Molecular, and Therapeutic Considerations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Special Issue on Skin Cancers of the Head and Neck.Cancers · 2025Article
- 31-Gene expression profiling for cutaneous melanoma: an expert consensus panel.Dermatology online journal · 2025Review
- Ocular Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review with a Focus on Molecular Biology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Review
- Integrated Meta-Analysis Identifies Keratin Family Genes and Associated Genes as Key Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets in Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing Two Gene Expression Profile Tests to Standard of Care for Identifying Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma at Low Risk of Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCutaneous melanoma is an increasingly common and potentially lethal form of skin cancer. Current staging systems based on clinical and pathological features have limitations in accurately predicting outcomes, particularly for early-stage disease. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test has emerged as a promising tool for improving risk stratification in melanoma patients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the prognostic performance of the 31-GEP test in cutaneous melanoma. A comprehensive literature search was performed in multiple databases. Studies reporting survival outcomes stratified by 31-GEP class were included. Random-effects models were used to determine survival estimates across studies.
resultsThirteen studies comprising 14,760 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The 31-GEP test consistently stratified patients into risk groups with significantly different outcomes. The 5-year melanoma-specific survival rates were 99.8% (95% CI: 98-100%) for Class 1A, 97.6% (95% CI: 92.4-99.3%) for Class 1B/2A, and 83.4% (95% CI: 66.5-92.7%) for Class 2B. Similar trends were observed for recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis supports the prognostic utility of the 31-GEP test in cutaneous melanoma prognostication. The test consistently stratified patients into clinically meaningful risk groups across multiple survival metrics. These findings support the potential clinical utility of the 31-GEP test in enhancing current staging systems and informing personalized management strategies for melanoma patients.
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.