ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Comparing Two Gene Expression Profile Tests to Standard of Care for Identifying Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma at Low Risk of Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Flawed Benchmarks and Biased Cohorts: Reassessing the Evidence for CP-GEP (Merlin) Versus 31-GEP (DecisionDx-Melanoma).International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (CM) recommend avoiding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) when the positivity risk is <5%, considering SLNB when the risk is 5-10%, or offering SLNB when the risk is >10%. Most patients undergoing SLNB have a negative result, showing that reliance upon the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T-stage alone results in most patients undergoing an unnecessary, negative, unreliable, invasive procedure. Materials and Methods: Two gene expression profile (GEP) tests, the CP-GEP and the 31-GEP, have been developed to identify patients at low risk of SLN positivity who may consider avoiding SLNB. We analyzed the accuracy of the CP-GEP and 31-GEP in identifying patients with <5% risk of SLN positivity across the five validation studies of the CP-GEP and four validation studies of the 31-GEP in T1-T2 tumors. Results: Patients considered low risk by the CP-GEP had an SLN positivity rate of 6.2%, higher than the risk threshold of 5% used by the NCCN to guide SLNB decisions. In contrast, patients considered low risk by the 31-GEP or i31-SLNB had a 2.8% SLN positivity rate, a substantial improvement over AJCC-staging guidance. Conclusion: Overall, the CP-GEP did not perform as well as AJCC, while the 31-GEP performed better than AJCC.
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.