Real-World Performance of a Noninvasive Cutaneous Melanoma Rule-Out Test: A Multicenter U.S. Registry Study

Main Article Content

Mark Kaufmann
Maral Skelsey
Laura Ferris
Michael Walker
Andrew Rigby
Burkhard Jansen
Loren Clarke

Keywords

Melanoma, Rule-out Test

Abstract

Introduction: Non-invasive adjuncts to visual assessment of pigmented lesions may reduce biopsies of benign lesions without compromising melanoma detection. A non-invasive genomic melanoma rule-out assay analyzes RNA extracted from stratum corneum cells for PRAME and LINC00518, two genes commonly expressed in melanomas but less often in benign lesions. This study sought to characterize performance of this test in a large patient cohort tested in the real-world clinical setting.


Methods: The test was applied to suspicious pigmented skin lesions at 63 U.S. dermatology and primary care practices. Test results (positive / negative) were compared to pathology diagnoses (melanoma / not melanoma) for lesions that were biopsied and to follow-up visual examination for those that were monitored.


Results: Of 19,653 total lesions evaluated, 17,858 (90.87%) tested negative. Biopsy results and / or follow-up examinations were available for 5,096 lesions, with median and mean follow-up duration of 352 and 341 days, respectively. For melanoma, sensitivity was 95.8% and specificity was 69.4%. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 13.4%, and NPV was 99.7%. For melanoma and ‘borderline’ lesions combined, sensitivity was 94.2%, specificity was 71.2%, PPV was 20.8%, and NPV was 99.3%.


Conclusion: The results suggest this noninvasive test can facilitate distinction of melanoma from its benign simulators, increasing the proportion of pigmented lesions that can be safely managed with surveillance rather than biopsy and/or excision.

References

1. 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. May 1 2018;154(5):569-573. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.0212

2. Petty AJ, Ackerson B, Garza R, et al. Meta-analysis of number needed to treat for diagnosis of melanoma by clinical setting. J Am Acad Dermatol. May 2020;82(5):1158-1165. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2019.12.063

3. Skudalski L, Waldman R, Kerr PE, Grant-Kels JM. Melanoma: How and when to consider clinical diagnostic technologies. J Am Acad Dermatol. Mar 2022;86(3):503-512. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.06.901

4. Fried L, Tan A, Bajaj S, Liebman TN, Polsky D, Stein JA. Technological advances for the detection of melanoma: Advances in molecular techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol. Oct 2020;83(4):996-1004. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.122

5. Gerami P, Yao Z, Polsky D, et al. Development and validation of a noninvasive 2-gene molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jan 2017;76(1):114-120 e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.07.038

6. Ferris LK, Jansen B, Ho J, et al. Utility of a Noninvasive 2-Gene Molecular Assay for Cutaneous Melanoma and Effect on the Decision to Biopsy. JAMA Dermatol. Jul 1 2017;153(7):675-680. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.0473

7. Skelsey MK, Brouha B, Rock J, et al. Non-Invasive Detection of Genomic Atypia Increases Real-World NPV and PPV of the Melanoma Diagnostic Pathway and Reduces Biopsy Burden. SKIN. September 2021 2021;5(5):512-523.

8. Trepanowski N, Chang MS, Ziad A, Grossman D, Kim CC, Hartman RI. Update on patterns of use of a genetic expression profiling adhesive test to detect melanoma: a cross-sectional survey of academic pigmented lesion experts and private practice clinicians. Dermatol Online J. Aug 15 2023;29(4)doi:10.5070/D329461913

9. Elmore JG, Barnhill RL, Elder DE, et al. Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study. BMJ. Jun 28 2017;357:j2813. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2813

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>