Main Article Content
Melanoma, Biomarker, Rule-out Test, Clinical Utility, Non-Invasive, Gene Expression, Pigmented Lesion
Importance: Melanoma is diagnosed in approximately 200,000 people within the US each year and is responsible for more than 6,850 deaths. Currently, clinical suspicion guides biopsy decisions and melanoma is confirmed in approximately 4% of biopsied lesions. A non-invasive two-gene expression test (2-GEP) was shown to enhance the physical exam by evaluating genomic atypia to guide biopsy decisions. This study examines the corresponding histopathology of real-world 2-GEP-positive cases.
Methods: Cutaneous lesions suspicious for melanoma (n=3,418) were 2-GEP tested by 90 licensed clinicians in real-world practice. 2-GEP-positive lesions (genomically atypical as indicated by the detection of LINC and/or PRAME) were biopsied in 316 out of 324 (97.5%) cases and 313 pathology reports were available for analysis.
Results: Biopsied 2-GEP-positive lesions were separated into diagnostic subgroups based on corresponding pathology reports. The prevalence of melanoma in biopsies of 2-GEP-positive lesions was 18.7%. Gene expression of both LINC and PRAME was present in ever-increasing percentages of melanocytic lesions as pathology reports demonstrated increasing levels of atypia. Notably, 47.5% of the histopathologically-confirmed melanomas demonstrated this double positive genomic signature while 23.7% were single-positive for LINC and 28.8% were single-positive for PRAME.
Discussion: These data show that biopsied 2-GEP-positive lesions are enriched almost five-fold for advanced histopathologic features compared to those biopsied based solely on visual assessment criteria. The close correlation between genomic atypia and atypical pathology should be considered when planning treatment of a 2-GEP-positive lesion. Consideration of genomic atypia may be a superior approach to guide biopsy decisions and manage pigmented lesions.
2. Anderson, AM, Matsumoto M, Saul MI, Secrest AM, Ferris LK. Accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by physician assistants compared with dermatologists in a large health care system. JAMA Dermatol. 2018 May; 154(5):569-573.
3. Nault A, Zhang C, Kim KM, Saha S, Bennett DD, Xu YG. Biopsy use in skin cancer diagnosis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015 August; 151(8):899-902.
4. Gerami P, Yao Z, Polsky D, Jansen B, Busam K, Ho J, Martini M, Ferris LK. Development and validation of a noninvasive 2-gene molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Jan;76(1):114-20 e2. [PMID: 27707590].
5. Ferris LK, Moy RL, Gerami P, Sligh JE, Jansen B, Yao Z, Cockerell CJ. Noninvasive analysis of high-risk driver mutations and gene expression profiles in primary cutaneous melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 May;139(5):1127-1134. [PMID: 30500343].
6. Ferris LK, Rigel DS, Siegel DM, Skelsey MK, Peck, GL, Hren C, Gorman C, Frumento G, Jansen B, Zuxu Y, Rock, J, Knezevich SR, Cockerell CJ. Impact on clinical practice of a non-invasive gene expression melanoma rule-out test: 12-month follow-up of negative test results and utility data from a large US registry study. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May;25(5):1-8.
7. Jackson Cullison SR, Jansen B., Yao Z, Ferris LK. Risk stratification of severely dysplastic nevi by non-invasively obtained gene expression and mutation analyses. SKIN. 2020 March 8;4(2):105-110.
8. Brouha B, Ferris LK, Skelsey MK, Peck G, Moy R, Yao Z, Jansen B. Real-world utility of a non-invasive gene expression test to rule out primary cutaneous melanoma: a large US registry study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020 March; 19(3)257-262.
9. Raghavan SS, Wang JY, Kwok S, Rieger KE, Novoa RA, Brown RA. PRAME expression in melanocytic proliferations with intermediate histopathologic or spitzoid features. J Cutan Pathol. 2020; 47:1023-1131.
10. Swetter SM, Tsao H, Bichakjian CK et al. Guidelines of care for the management of primary cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 January; 80(1):208-250.