TY - JOUR
T1 - Expert Consensus on the Use of Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Tests for the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma
T2 - Consensus from the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group
AU - The Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group
AU - Farberg, Aaron S.
AU - Marson, Justin W.
AU - Glazer, Alex
AU - Litchman, Graham H.
AU - Svoboda, Ryan
AU - Winkelmann, Richard R.
AU - Brownstone, Nicholas
AU - Rigel, Darrell S.
N1 - Funding Information:
Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group: The Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group is a multicenter collaboration of experts dedicated to the prevention of skin cancer. The Working Group consists of clinical and research specialists who have spent years investigating and understanding the diagnosis and management of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. The mission of the Working Group is to cultivate and analyze evidence-based research to better understand skin cancer pathophysiology, treatment, and prevention, and become leaders in skin health education. No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published. All named authors (Aaron S Farberg, Richard R Winkelman, Justin W Marson, Alex Glazer, Graham H Litchman, Ryan Svoboda, Nicholas Brownstone, and Darrell S. Rigel) contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and conceptualization were performed by Aaron S Farberg and Justin W Marson. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Justin W Marson, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Justin W Marson, Alex Glazer, Graham H Litchman, Ryan Svoboda and Nicholas Brownstone have no relevant disclosures nor conflicts of interest to disclose. Aaron S Farberg and Richard R Winkelmann serve as consultants for Castle Bioscience, Inc., and Darrell S Rigel serves as a consultant, advisory board member, and speaker for Castle Biosciences, Inc. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Authors attest that the manuscript in its current form has not been previously presented or published nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Background: Prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma relies on historical, clinicopathological, and phenotypic risk factors according to American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines but may not account for a patient’s individual additional genetic risk factors. Objective: To review the available literature regarding commercially available gene expression profile (GEP) tests and their use in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted for original, English-language studies or meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2021 on commercially available GEP tests in cutaneous melanoma prognosis, clinical decision-making regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy, and real-world efficacy. After the literature review, the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group, an expert panel of dermatologists with specialized training in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis and management, utilized a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus statements regarding prognostic gene expression profile tests. Statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote of > 80%. Results: The initial search identified 1064 studies/meta-analyses that met the search criteria. Of these, we included 21 original articles and meta-analyses that studied the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma; Castle Biosciences, Inc.), five original articles that studied the 11-GEP test (Melagenix; NeraCare GmbH), and four original articles that studied the 8-GEP test with clinicopathological factors (Merlin; 8-GEP + CP; SkylineDx B.V.) in this review. Six statements received supermajority approval and were adopted by the panel. Conclusion: GEP tests provide additional, reproducible information for dermatologists to consider within the larger framework of the eighth edition of the AJCC and NCCN cutaneous melanoma guidelines when counseling regarding prognosis and when considering a sentinel lymph node biopsy.
AB - Background: Prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma relies on historical, clinicopathological, and phenotypic risk factors according to American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines but may not account for a patient’s individual additional genetic risk factors. Objective: To review the available literature regarding commercially available gene expression profile (GEP) tests and their use in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted for original, English-language studies or meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2021 on commercially available GEP tests in cutaneous melanoma prognosis, clinical decision-making regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy, and real-world efficacy. After the literature review, the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group, an expert panel of dermatologists with specialized training in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis and management, utilized a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus statements regarding prognostic gene expression profile tests. Statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote of > 80%. Results: The initial search identified 1064 studies/meta-analyses that met the search criteria. Of these, we included 21 original articles and meta-analyses that studied the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma; Castle Biosciences, Inc.), five original articles that studied the 11-GEP test (Melagenix; NeraCare GmbH), and four original articles that studied the 8-GEP test with clinicopathological factors (Merlin; 8-GEP + CP; SkylineDx B.V.) in this review. Six statements received supermajority approval and were adopted by the panel. Conclusion: GEP tests provide additional, reproducible information for dermatologists to consider within the larger framework of the eighth edition of the AJCC and NCCN cutaneous melanoma guidelines when counseling regarding prognosis and when considering a sentinel lymph node biopsy.
KW - American joint committee on cancer 8th edition
KW - Consensus
KW - Cutaneous melanoma
KW - Gene-expression profile
KW - Prediction
KW - Prognostic staging
KW - Risk
KW - Sentinel lymph node
KW - Sentinel lymph node biopsy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133834218&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s13555-022-00709-x
DO - 10.1007/s13555-022-00709-x
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85133834218
SN - 2190-9172
VL - 12
SP - 807
EP - 823
JO - Dermatology and Therapy
JF - Dermatology and Therapy
IS - 4
ER -