| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis |
Authors' Affiliations: Departments of 1 Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and 2 Pathology and Immunology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri and 3 Tumori Foundation, San Francisco, California
Requests for reprints: J. William Harbour, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Box 8096, St. Louis, MO 63110. Phone: 314-362-3315; Fax: 314-747-5073; E-mail: harbour{at}wustl.edu.
Purpose: To compare a gene expression–based classifier versus the standard genetic prognostic marker, monosomy 3, for predicting metastasis in uveal melanoma.
Experimental Design: Gene expression profiling, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) were done on 67 primary uveal melanomas. Clinical and pathologic prognostic factors were also assessed. Variables were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards, Kaplan-Meier analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.
Results: The gene expression–based molecular classifier assigned 27 tumors to class 1 (low risk) and 25 tumors to class 2 (high risk). By Cox univariate proportional hazards, class 2 signature (P = 0.0001), advanced patient age (P = 0.01), and scleral invasion (P = 0.007) were the only variables significantly associated with metastasis. Only the class 2 signature was needed to optimize predictive accuracy in a Cox multivariate model. A less significant association with metastasis was observed for monosomy 3 detected by aCGH (P = 0.076) and FISH (P = 0.127). The sensitivity and specificity for the molecular classifier (84.6% and 92.9%, respectively) were superior to monosomy 3 detected by aCGH (58.3% and 85.7%, respectively) and FISH (50.0% and 72.7%, respectively). Positive and negative predictive values (91.7% and 86.7%, respectively) and positive and negative likelihood ratios (11.9 and 0.2, respectively) for the molecular classifier were also superior to those for monosomy 3.
Conclusions: Molecular classification based on gene expression profiling of the primary tumor was superior to monosomy 3 and clinicopathologic prognostic factors for predicting metastasis in uveal melanoma.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Trolet, P. Hupe, I. Huon, I. Lebigot, C. Decraene, O. Delattre, X. Sastre-Garau, S. Saule, J.-P. Thiery, C. Plancher, et al. Genomic Profiling and Identification of High-Risk Uveal Melanoma by Array CGH Analysis of Primary Tumors and Liver Metastases Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2009; 50(6): 2572 - 2580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. W. Mensink, J. Vaarwater, E. Kilic, N. C. Naus, N. Mooy, G. Luyten, H. T. Bruggenwirth, D. Paridaens, and A. de Klein Chromosome 3 Intratumor Heterogeneity in Uveal Melanoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2009; 50(2): 500 - 504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Onken, L. A. Worley, M. D. Long, S. Duan, M. L. Council, A. M. Bowcock, and J. W. Harbour Oncogenic Mutations in GNAQ Occur Early in Uveal Melanoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2008; 49(12): 5230 - 5234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. van Gils, E. M. Lodder, H. W. Mensink, E. Kilic, N. C. Naus, H. T. Bruggenwirth, W. van IJcken, D. Paridaens, G. P. Luyten, and A. de Klein Gene Expression Profiling in Uveal Melanoma: Two Regions on 3p Related to Prognosis Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2008; 49(10): 4254 - 4262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Ulmer, J. Beutel, D. Susskind, R.-D. Hilgers, F. Ziemssen, M. Luke, M. Rocken, M. Rohrbach, G. Fierlbeck, K.-U. Bartz-Schmidt, et al. Visualization of Circulating Melanoma Cells in Peripheral Blood of Patients with Primary Uveal Melanoma Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2008; 14(14): 4469 - 4474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Onken, L. A. Worley, and J. W. Harbour A Metastasis Modifier Locus on Human Chromosome 8p in Uveal Melanoma Identified by Integrative Genomic Analysis Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2008; 14(12): 3737 - 3745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Tsai and J. M. O'Brien The Future Promise and the Current Reality of Genetic Prognostication in Patients With Uveal Melanoma Arch Ophthalmol, March 1, 2008; 126(3): 413 - 415. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Ehlers, L. Worley, M. D. Onken, and J. W. Harbour Integrative Genomic Analysis of Aneuploidy in Uveal Melanoma Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2008; 14(1): 115 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. D Singh, K. Sisley, Y. Xu, J. Li, P. Faber, S. J Plummer, H. S Mudhar, I. G Rennie, P. M Kessler, G. Casey, et al. Reduced expression of autotaxin predicts survival in uveal melanoma Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2007; 91(10): 1385 - 1392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Harbour Molecular Prognostic Testing in Uveal Melanoma: Has It Finally Come of Age? Arch Ophthalmol, August 1, 2007; 125(8): 1122 - 1123. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
