Lane Anne Marie, Hartley Caleb D, McCarthy Ronan, Go Ashley, Gragoudas Evangelos S, Suwajanakorn Disorn, Wu Frances, Kim Ivana K
Ocular Melanoma Center, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Center of Excellence in Retina, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
J Vitreoretin Dis. 2024 Dec 13:24741264241302859. doi: 10.1177/24741264241302859.
To determine whether the availability of a cytopathology-confirming diagnosis is correlated with the prognostic accuracy of a gene expression profiling assay. A single-center retrospective review was performed of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma who had a fine-needle aspiration biopsy and gene expression profiling before proton therapy from 2012 to 2020. The development of metastases was compared in patients with gene expression profiling and cytopathology (gene expression profiling+cytopathology group) and patients with gene expression profiling only (gene expression profiling only group). Of 141 patients with gene expression profiling, 98 (69.5%) had cytopathology results and 43 (30.5%) did not. The median tumor thickness was greater in the gene expression profiling+cytopathology group (5.0 mm) than in the gene expression profiling only group (3.1 mm) ( = .0003). The distribution of gene expression profiling class in these 2 groups, respectively, was class 1A, 38 (38.8%) vs 20 (46.5%); class 1B, 20 (20.4%) vs 15 (34.9%); class 2, 40 (40.8%) vs 8 (18.6%). Class 1A tumors metastasized in 4 patients (10.5%) in the gene expression profiling+cytopathology group and 3 patients (15.0%) in the gene expression profiling only group. Class 1B tumors metastasized in 3 patients (15.0%) and 1 patient (6.7%), and class 2 tumors metastasized in 18 patients (45.0%) and 5 patients (62.5%) in these 2 groups, respectively. The median months from initial treatment to metastasis diagnosis within each gene expression profiling class for the gene expression profiling+cytopathology and gene expression profiling only groups, respectively, was class 1A, 36.7 vs 33.6 ( = .86); class 1B, 37.8 vs 68.6 ( = 1.0); class 2, 19.0 vs 15.8 ( = .70). We found no evidence that the lack of confirmatory cytology negatively affects the accuracy of gene expression profiling, and no significant differences were found in the overall rates of metastasis between patients with and patients without cytopathology or rates within each class of gene expression profiling.
为了确定细胞病理学确诊诊断的可用性是否与基因表达谱分析检测的预后准确性相关。对2012年至2020年期间在质子治疗前接受细针穿刺活检和基因表达谱分析的葡萄膜黑色素瘤患者进行了单中心回顾性研究。比较了有基因表达谱分析和细胞病理学结果的患者(基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组)与仅有基因表达谱分析的患者(仅基因表达谱分析组)发生转移的情况。在141例进行基因表达谱分析的患者中,98例(69.5%)有细胞病理学结果,43例(30.5%)没有。基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组的肿瘤中位数厚度(5.0 mm)大于仅基因表达谱分析组(3.1 mm)(P = 0.0003)。这两组中基因表达谱分析类别的分布分别为1A类,38例(38.8%)对20例(46.5%);1B类,20例(20.4%)对15例(34.9%);2类,40例(40.8%)对8例(18.6%)。在基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组中,1A类肿瘤有4例(10.5%)发生转移,在仅基因表达谱分析组中有3例(15.0%)发生转移。在这两组中,1B类肿瘤分别有3例(15.0%)和1例(6.7%)发生转移,2类肿瘤分别有18例(45.0%)和5例(62.5%)发生转移。基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组和仅基因表达谱分析组中,每个基因表达谱分析类别从初始治疗到转移诊断的中位数月数分别为:1A类,36.7对33.6(P = 0.86);1B类,37.8对68.6(P = 1.0);2类,19.0对15.8(P = 0.70)。我们没有发现证据表明缺乏确诊性细胞学检查会对基因表达谱分析的准确性产生负面影响,并且在有和没有细胞病理学结果的患者之间,以及在每个基因表达谱分析类别中的转移总发生率方面没有发现显著差异。