Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41725468›Full record

ReviewDermatology online journal2025

31-Gene expression profiling for cutaneous melanoma: an expert consensus panel.

Joshua Burshtein, Clay Cockerell, David Cotter, Aaron Farberg, Laura Ferris, Mark Kaufmann, Sancy Leachman, Jason Rizzo, Todd Schlesinger, Milaan Shah and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Dermatology online journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

15 authors.

Joshua BurshteinDepartment of Dermatology, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Clay CockerellCockerell Dermatopathology, Dallas, TX, USA.
David CotterLas Vegas Dermatology, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Aaron FarbergBare Dermatology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, TX, USA.
Laura FerrisDepartment of Dermatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Mark KaufmannDepartment of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Sancy LeachmanDepartment of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Jason RizzoDermatology, The Woodruff Institute for Dermatology, Bonita Springs, FL, USA.
Todd SchlesingerClinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, SC, USA.
Milaan ShahDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Lauren DeBuskDepartment of Dermatology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Angela RosenbergDepartment of Dermatology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Brooke BartleyDepartment of Dermatology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Mark LebwohlDepartment of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Darrell RigelDepartment of Dermatology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To review published literature on the clinical efficacy, use, and accuracy of the 31-gene expression profiling (31-GEP) test for prognostic information in invasive melanoma. Methods A comprehensive literature search used keywords "31-gene expression profiling," "melanoma," "prognosis," "clinical efficacy," and "clinical utility." A panel of 10 dermatologists with expertise in melanoma management reviewed the articles and created consensus statements. A modified Delphi process approved each statement, requiring supermajority approval through multiple rounds of real-time voting, with strength of recommendation assigned. Results The search produced 150 articles; 26 met inclusion criteria. The panel unanimously voted to adopt 9 consensus statements and recommendations regarding 31-GEP testing: 8 with strength "A" and 1 with strength "C." Conclusion The panel agreed there is strong support for using 31-GEP testing to provide prognostic information for invasive melanoma. The test provides prognostic information when thickness and other traditional factors are unknown, improves prognosis assessment when added to American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system, and is associated with improved melanoma-specific mortality and overall survival. The panel concluded that the robust existing literature strongly supports its use as a best practice for appropriate patients with melanoma.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicCutaneous Malignant MelanomaDelphi TechniqueHumansPrognosis31-gene expression profilingclinical utilitymelanomaprognosisrisk stratificationsentinel lymph node biopsy

Identifiers

PMID41725468

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.