Please login or create an account. If you do not have access to this content, you will be shown a 30 second preview and licensing options.

  • Presentation

Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Testing and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Risk Prediction

Description

The presentation focuses on prognostic gene expression profiling (GEP) testing and its implications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in melanoma patients. The presenter discusses three commercial GEP tests: the Melogenics test, the Decision DX Melanoma test, and the Merlin test, which analyze gene expressions to predict the biological behavior and potential metastasis of melanoma lesions. The significance of GEP results is highlighted, particularly in situations where they conflict with traditional staging predictions, posing challenges in management decisions. The presenter emphasizes that while GEP tests may enhance prognostic accuracy, their clinical utility remains uncertain due to a lack of robust evidence demonstrating positive patient outcomes based on GEP results. Current guidelines do not endorse these tests due to insufficient data on their impact on management strategies. The talk concludes by stressing the need for further research and clinical trials to clarify the roles of GEP in guiding treatment and reducing unnecessary procedures, potentially affording better patient outcomes and streamlining management.

View more

Conclusions

  • Prognostic gene expression profiling (GEP) testing may provide better prognostics than traditional AJCC staging for melanoma.
  • GEP testing is not currently advocated by clinical guidelines despite its increasing routine use.
  • There is potential for GEP testing to inform patient management decisions.
  • Patients with high-risk GEP results may require different clinical interventions compared to those assigned low-risk based on AJCC staging.
  • GEP testing has potential to predict sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) outcomes and reduce unnecessary procedures.
  • Discrepant GEP results and AJCC staging are common and warrant further investigation in prospective trials.
  • Cost-effectiveness of GEP testing versus traditional nomograms remains uncertain and needs evaluation.
  • Smith, Cancer Biol Ther 2005
  • Haqq, PNAS 2005
  • Jaeger, Clin Cancer Res 2007
  • Amaral, Eur J Cancer 2020
  • Gastman, JAAD 2019
  • Luke, Lancet 2022;399:1718-1729
  • Kirkwood, Nature Med 2023;29:2835-2843
  • Fastner, Cancer Med 2023
  • Allard-Coutu, Life 2023
  • Bellomo, JCO Precis Oncol 2020
  • Stassen, Eur J Surg Oncol 2023
  • Mulder, Cancers 2022
  • Vetto, Future Oncol 2019
  • Whitman, JCO Precision Oncol 2021
  • Yamamoto, Curr Med Res Opin 2022
  • NCCN Melanoma Version 1.2024