↓ Skip to main content

Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4016-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan S. Zager, Brian R. Gastman, Sancy Leachman, Rene C. Gonzalez, Martin D. Fleming, Laura K. Ferris, Jonhan Ho, Alexander R. Miller, Robert W. Cook, Kyle R. Covington, Kristen Meldi-Plasseraud, Brooke Middlebrook, Lewis H. Kaminester, Anthony Greisinger, Sarah I. Estrada, David M. Pariser, Lee D. Cranmer, Jane L. Messina, John T. Vetto, Jeffrey D. Wayne, Keith A. Delman, David H. Lawson, Pedram Gerami

Abstract

The heterogeneous behavior of patients with melanoma makes prognostication challenging. To address this, a gene expression profile (GEP) test to predict metastatic risk was previously developed. This study evaluates the GEP's prognostic accuracy in an independent cohort of cutaneous melanoma patients. This multi-center study analyzed primary melanoma tumors from 523 patients, using the GEP to classify patients as Class 1 (low risk) and Class 2 (high risk). Molecular classification was correlated to clinical outcome and assessed along with AJCC v7 staging criteria. Primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS) and distant metastasis-free (DMFS) survival. The 5-year RFS rates for Class 1 and Class 2 were 88% and 52%, respectively, and DMFS rates were 93% versus 60%, respectively (P < 0.001). The GEP was a significant predictor of RFS and DMFS in univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4 and 6.6, respectively, P < 0.001 for each), along with Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) status (P < 0.001 for each). GEP, tumor thickness and SLN status were significant predictors of RFS and DMFS in a multivariate model that also included ulceration and mitotic rate (RFS HR = 2.1, 1.2, and 2.5, respectively, P < 0.001 for each; and DMFS HR = 2.7, 1.3 and 3.0, respectively, P < 0.01 for each). The GEP test is an objective predictor of metastatic risk and provides additional independent prognostic information to traditional staging to help estimate an individual's risk for recurrence. The assay identified 70% of stage I and II patients who ultimately developed distant metastasis. Its role in consideration of patients for adjuvant therapy should be examined prospectively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Other 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 16 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2021.
All research outputs
#13,516,518
of 21,672,018 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,163
of 7,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,724
of 298,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,672,018 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,848 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them