Journal of Hematology & Oncology (Aug 2017)

Interim analysis of survival in a prospective, multi-center registry cohort of cutaneous melanoma tested with a prognostic 31-gene expression profile test

  • Eddy C. Hsueh,
  • James R. DeBloom,
  • Jonathan Lee,
  • Jeffrey J. Sussman,
  • Kyle R. Covington,
  • Brooke Middlebrook,
  • Clare Johnson,
  • Robert W. Cook,
  • Craig L. Slingluff,
  • Kelly M. McMasters

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-017-0520-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background A 31-gene expression profile (GEP) test that provides risk classification of cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients has been validated in several retrospective studies. The objective of the reported study was a prospective evaluation of the GEP performance in patients enrolled in two clinical registries. Methods Three-hundred twenty two CM patients enrolled in the EXPAND (NCT02355587) and INTEGRATE (NCT02355574) registries met the criteria of age ≥ 16 years, successful GEP result and ≥1 follow-up visit for inclusion in this interim analysis. Primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS), distant metastasis-free (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Median follow-up was 1.5 years for event-free patients. Median age for subjects was 58 years (range 18–87) and median Breslow thickness was 1.2 mm (range 0.2–12.0). Eighty-eight percent (282/322) of cases had stage I/II disease and 74% (237/322) had a SLN biopsy. Seventy-seven percent (248/322) had class 1 molecular profiles. 1.5-year RFS, DMFS, and OS rates were 97 vs. 77%, 99 vs. 89%, and 99 vs. 92% for class 1 vs. class 2, respectively (p < 0.0001 for each). Multivariate Cox regression showed Breslow thickness, mitotic rate, and GEP class to significantly predict recurrence (p < 0.01), while tumor thickness was the only significant predictor of distant metastasis and overall survival in this interim analysis. Conclusions Interim analysis of patient outcomes from a combined prospective cohort supports the 31-gene GEP’s ability to stratify early-stage CM patients into two groups with significantly different metastatic risk. RFS outcomes in this real-world cohort are consistent with previously published analyses with retrospective specimens. GEP testing complements current clinicopathologic features and increases identification of high-risk patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02355574 and NCT02355587

Keywords