Expanded evidence that the 31-gene expression profile test provides clinical utility for melanoma management in a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (CM) recommend physicians consider increased surveillance for patients who typically have lower melanoma survival rates (stages IIB-IV as determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 8th edition). However, up to 15% of patients identified as having a low recurrence risk (stages I-IIA) experience disease recurrence, and some patients identified as having a high recurrence risk will not experience any recurrence. The 31-gene expression profile test (31-GEP) stratifies patient recurrence risk into low (Class 1) and high (Class 2) and has demonstrated risk-appropriate impact on disease management and clinical decisions. METHODS: Five-year plans for lab work, frequency of clinical visits, and imaging pre- and post-31-GEP test results were assessed for a cohort of 509 stage I-III patients following an interim subset analysis of 247 patients. RESULTS: After receiving 31-GEP results, 50.6% of patients had a change in management plans in at least one of the following categories-clinical visits, lab work, or surveillance imaging. The changes aligned with the risk predicted by the 31-GEP for 76.1% of patients with a Class 1 result and 78.7% of patients with a Class 2 result. A Class 1 31-GEP result was associated with changes toward low-intensity management recommendations, while a Class 2 result was associated with changes toward high-intensity management recommendations. CONCLUSION: The 31-GEP can stratify patient recurrence risk in patients with CM, and clinicians understand and apply the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP test to alter patient management in risk-appropriate directions.

When caught early, cancer of the skin can usually be removed, and patients have excellent chances of survival. However, some patients will have their cancer come back or spread to a new location in their body.The 31-gene expression profile (GEP) test measures the expression levels of 31 genes from an individual patient's tumor. A proprietary formula uses this information to identify the risk of recurrence or spread as low risk (Class 1) or high risk (Class 2). Cancers with low-risk 31-GEP scores have a lower chance of cancer recurrence or spread than patients with a high-risk score.In this study, we wanted to determine if doctors treated patients with low-risk scores differently from patients with high-risk scores. We found that doctors changed approximately half of patient treatment plans (doctor visits, lab work, or imaging to see if the cancer has come back) after learning the 31-GEP test results. Doctors usually planned less frequent follow-up visits for Class 1 results and more frequent follow up for Class 2 results.This study found doctors understand and make changes to their treatment plans based on the patient's 31-GEP test result.

Integrating 31-Gene Expression Profiling With Clinicopathologic Features to Optimize Cutaneous Melanoma Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction.

National guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) be offered to patients with > 10% likelihood of sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity. On the other hand, guidelines do not recommend SLNB for patients with T1a tumors without high-risk features who have < 5% likelihood of a positive SLN. However, the decision to perform SLNB is less certain for patients with higher-risk T1 melanomas in which a positive node is expected 5%-10% of the time. We hypothesized that integrating clinicopathologic features with the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) score using advanced artificial intelligence techniques would provide more precise SLN risk prediction. METHODS: An integrated 31-GEP (i31-GEP) neural network algorithm incorporating clinicopathologic features with the continuous 31-GEP score was developed using a previously reported patient cohort (n = 1,398) and validated using an independent cohort (n = 1,674). RESULTS: Compared with other covariates in the i31-GEP, the continuous 31-GEP score had the largest likelihood ratio (G2 = 91.3, P < .001) for predicting SLN positivity. The i31-GEP demonstrated high concordance between predicted and observed SLN positivity rates (linear regression slope = 0.999). The i31-GEP increased the percentage of patients with T1-T4 tumors predicted to have < 5% SLN-positive likelihood from 8.5% to 27.7% with a negative predictive value of 98%. Importantly, for patients with T1 tumors originally classified with a likelihood of SLN positivity of 5%-10%, the i31-GEP reclassified 63% of cases as having < 5% or > 10% likelihood of positive SLN, for a more precise, personalized, and clinically actionable SLN-positive likelihood estimate. CONCLUSION: These data suggest the i31-GEP could reduce the number of SLNBs performed by identifying patients with likelihood under the 5% threshold for performance of SLNB and improve the yield of positive SLNBs by identifying patients more likely to have a positive SLNB.

Clinical impact of a 31-gene expression profile test for cutaneous melanoma in 156 prospectively and consecutively tested patients.

OBJECTIVE: DecisionDx-Melanoma * is a 31-gene expression profile test that predicts the risk of metastasis in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma (CM). This study was designed to ascertain clinical management changes determined by the test outcome, which classifies CM patients being at low (Class 1) or high (Class 2) risk for recurrence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medical charts were reviewed from 156 CM patients from six institutions (three dermatology and three surgical oncology practices) who were consecutively tested between May 2013 and December 2015. Clinical management data that were compiled and compared before and after receipt of the 31-gene expression test result included frequency of physical exams, frequency and modality of imaging, and referrals to surgical and medical oncologists. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of patients were Stage I, 47% were Stage II and 8% were Stage III. Overall, 95 patients (61%) were Class 1 and 61 (39%) were Class 2. Documented changes in management were observed in 82 (53%) patients, with the majority of Class 2 patients (77%) undergoing management changes compared to 37% of Class 1 patients (p < 0.0001 by Fisher's exact test). The majority (77/82, 94%) of these changes were concordant with the risk indicated by the test result (p < 0.0001 by Fisher's exact test), with increased management intensity for Class 2 patients and reduced management intensity for Class 1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular risk classification by gene expression profiling has clinical impact and influences physicians to direct clinical management of CM patients. The vast majority of the changes implemented after the receipt of test results were reflective of the low or high recurrence risk associated with the patient's molecular classification. Because follow-up data was not collected for this patient cohort, the study is limited for the assessment of the impact of gene expression profile based management changes on healthcare resource utilization and patient outcome.

Is abdominoperineal resection a good option for stage IV adenocarcinoma of the distal rectum?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The management of the primary lesion in patients with stage IV adenocarcinoma of the distal rectum is controversial. An abdominoperineal resection (APR) may be a good option. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 21 patients with stage IV distal rectal adenocarcinoma treated with an APR between January 1991 to December 2000 was performed. RESULTS: All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 and normal preoperative alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin levels. Twelve patients (92%) with liver metastases had less than 25% of total liver volume involvement. Twenty patients (95%) had complete resolution of their symptoms related to the primary rectal cancer. The median follow-up was 19 months (range 3-92 months), with a median survival of 21.6 months and a 2-year overall survival of 34%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage IV distal rectal adenocarcinoma who have a good performance status, normal preoperative liver function tests, and minimal metastatic disease to the liver can be offered resective surgery.