Anne Marie Lane, Caleb D Hartley, Ronan McCarthy, Ashley Go, Evangelos S Gragoudas, Disorn Suwajanakorn, Frances Wu, Ivana K Kim
{"title":"细胞病理学确证及对葡萄膜黑色素瘤患者基因表达谱分析预测价值的潜在影响。","authors":"Anne Marie Lane, Caleb D Hartley, Ronan McCarthy, Ashley Go, Evangelos S Gragoudas, Disorn Suwajanakorn, Frances Wu, Ivana K Kim","doi":"10.1177/24741264241302859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To determine whether the availability of a cytopathology-confirming diagnosis is correlated with the prognostic accuracy of a gene expression profiling assay. <b>Methods:</b> 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). <b>Results:</b> 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) (<i>P</i> = .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 (<i>P</i> = .86); class 1B, 37.8 vs 68.6 (<i>P</i> = 1.0); class 2, 19.0 vs 15.8 (<i>P</i> = .70). <b>Conclusions:</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"24741264241302859"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645675/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confirmatory Cytopathology and Potential Impact on the Predictive Value of Gene Expression Profiling in Patients With Uveal Melanoma.\",\"authors\":\"Anne Marie Lane, Caleb D Hartley, Ronan McCarthy, Ashley Go, Evangelos S Gragoudas, Disorn Suwajanakorn, Frances Wu, Ivana K Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/24741264241302859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To determine whether the availability of a cytopathology-confirming diagnosis is correlated with the prognostic accuracy of a gene expression profiling assay. <b>Methods:</b> 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). <b>Results:</b> 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) (<i>P</i> = .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 (<i>P</i> = .86); class 1B, 37.8 vs 68.6 (<i>P</i> = 1.0); class 2, 19.0 vs 15.8 (<i>P</i> = .70). <b>Conclusions:</b> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"24741264241302859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645675/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264241302859\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264241302859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:确定细胞病理学确诊是否与基因表达谱分析的预后准确性相关。方法:采用单中心回顾性研究方法:对2012年至2020年质子治疗前进行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单中心回顾性研究。比较了进行基因表达谱分析和细胞病理学检查的患者(基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组)和仅进行基因表达谱分析的患者(仅进行基因表达谱分析组)发生转移的情况。结果:在141名进行了基因表达谱分析的患者中,98人(69.5%)有细胞病理学结果,43人(30.5%)没有细胞病理学结果。基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组的肿瘤中位厚度(5.0 毫米)大于仅有基因表达谱分析组(3.1 毫米)(P = .0003)。基因表达谱分析等级在这两组中的分布分别为:1A级,38(38.8%)对20(46.5%);1B级,20(20.4%)对15(34.9%);2级,40(40.8%)对8(18.6%)。在基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组中,1A 级肿瘤有 4 例(10.5%)发生转移,在仅进行基因表达谱分析组中,有 3 例(15.0%)发生转移。在这两组中,1B级肿瘤转移的患者分别为3人(15.0%)和1人(6.7%),2级肿瘤转移的患者分别为18人(45.0%)和5人(62.5%)。基因表达谱分析+细胞病理学组和仅基因表达谱分析组从初始治疗到确诊转移的中位月数分别为:1A级,36.7 vs 33.6 (P = .86);1B级,37.8 vs 68.6 (P = 1.0);2级,19.0 vs 15.8 (P = .70)。结论:我们没有发现证据表明缺乏确诊细胞学检查会对基因表达谱分析的准确性产生负面影响,有细胞病理学检查和无细胞病理学检查的患者之间的总体转移率或各等级基因表达谱分析中的转移率均无显著差异。
Confirmatory Cytopathology and Potential Impact on the Predictive Value of Gene Expression Profiling in Patients With Uveal Melanoma.
Purpose: To determine whether the availability of a cytopathology-confirming diagnosis is correlated with the prognostic accuracy of a gene expression profiling assay. Methods: 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). Results: 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) (P = .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 (P = .86); class 1B, 37.8 vs 68.6 (P = 1.0); class 2, 19.0 vs 15.8 (P = .70). Conclusions: 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.