Dataset Information

Gene Expression Profiling and PRAME Status Versus Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging for Prognostication in Uveal Melanoma.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To compare the prognostic accuracy of gene expression profiling (GEP) combined with PRAME status vs the clinical Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. METHODS:The study included 240 consecutive patients with UM. Tumors were assessed for GEP status (Class 1 or Class 2) using a validated 15-gene assay and PRAME expression status using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. TNM staging was according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition. Statistical analysis included univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Metastasis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS:GEP was Class 1 in 128 (53.3%) cases and Class 2 in 112 (46.7%) cases. PRAME status was negative in 157 (65.4%) cases and positive in 83 (34.6%) cases. TNM was stage I in 26 (10.8%) cases, IIA in 67 (27.9%) cases, IIB in 50 (20.8%) cases, IIIA in 59 (24.6%) cases, and IIIB in 38 (15.8%) cases. Metastatic disease was detected in 59 (24.6%) cases after median follow-up of 29 months (mean 42 months; range 1-195 months). Variables associated with metastasis included (in order of decreasing significance): GEP class (P = 1.5 × 10-8), largest basal tumor diameter (P = 2.5 × 10-6), PRAME status (P = 2.6 × 10-6), and TNM stage (P = 3.7 × 10-6). The prognostic accuracy of an optimized 3-category GEP/PRAME model (P = 8.6 × 10-14) was superior to an optimized TNM model (P = 1.3 × 10-5). CONCLUSIONS:In UM, molecular prognostic testing using GEP and PRAME provides prognostic accuracy that is superior to TNM staging.

SUBMITTER: Cai L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6214741 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gene Expression Profiling and PRAME Status Versus Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging for Prognostication in Uveal Melanoma.

Cai Louis L Paez-Escamilla Manuel M Walter Scott D SD Tarlan Bercin B Decatur Christina L CL Perez Barbara M BM Harbour J William JW

American journal of ophthalmology 20180806

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the prognostic accuracy of gene expression profiling (GEP) combined with PRAME status vs the clinical Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging in patients with uveal melanoma (UM).<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study.<h4>Methods</h4>The study included 240 consecutive patients with UM. Tumors were assessed for GEP status (Class 1 or Class 2) using a validated 15-gene assay and PRAME expression status using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. TNM staging was accordin ...[more]

PMID: 30092184

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Uveal melanoma (UM) is an intraocular primary malignant neoplasm that often gives rise to metastatic disease for which there are no effective therapies. A substantial proportion of UMs express the cancer-testis antigen PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma), which can potentially be targeted by adoptive T-cell therapy. Objective:To determine whether there may be a rationale for PRAME-directed T-cell therapy for metastatic UM. Design, Setting, and Participants:An experimental study using a retrospective cohort of 64 patients with UM (median follow-up, 62 months) was conducted from January 8, 2015, to November 20, 2016, at the Leiden University Medical Center. Clinical, histopathologic, and genetic parameters were compared between 64 PRAME-positive and PRAME-negative UMs. HLA class I restricted, PRAME-specific T cells were stimulated with UM cell lines to measure their antigen-specific reactivity against these cell lines, which were analyzed for PRAME expression by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Uveal melanoma metastases from 16 unrelated patients were assessed for PRAME expression by messenger RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization and for HLA class I expression by immunofluorescence staining. Main Outcomes and Measures:Interferon ? production for antigen-specific reactivity and detection of PRAME and HLA class I expression in primary and metastatic UM. Results:Of the 64 patients in the study (31 women and 33 men; mean [SD] age at the time of enucleation, 60.6 [15.6] years), PRAME expression was negative in 35 primary UMs and positive in 29 primary UMs. Positive PRAME expression was associated with a high largest basal diameter (15.0 vs 12.0 mm; P?=?.005), ciliary body involvement (59% vs 26%; P?=?.008), and amplification of chromosome 8q (66% vs 23%; P?=?.002). PRAME-specific T cells reacted against 4 of 7 UM cell lines, demonstrating that T-cell reactivity correlated with PRAME expression. Metastatic UM samples were positive for PRAME messenger RNA in 11 of 16 patients and for HLA class I in 10 of 16 patients, with 8 of 16 patients demonstrating coexpression of both PRAME and HLA class I. Conclusions and Relevance:PRAME is expressed in many primary and metastatic UMs, and about half of the metastatic UMs coexpress PRAME and HLA class I. The finding that PRAME-specific T cells in this study reacted against PRAME-positive UM cell lines suggests a potential role for PRAME-directed immunotherapy for selected patients with metastatic UM.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Germline mutations in BAP1 have been associated with BAP1-Tumor Predisposition Syndrome (BAP1-TPDS), a predisposition to multiple tumors within a family that includes uveal melanoma (UM), cutaneous melanoma, malignant mesothelioma and renal cell carcinoma. Alternatively, somatic mutations in BAP1 in UM have been associated with high risk for metastasis. In this study, we compare the risk of metastasis in UM that carry germline versus somatic BAP1 mutations and mutation-negative tumors. METHODS:DNA extracted from 142 UM and matched blood samples was sequenced using Sanger or next generation sequencing to identify BAP1 gene mutations. RESULTS:Eleven of 142 UM (8%) carried germline BAP1 mutations, 43 (30%) had somatic mutations, and 88 (62%) were mutation-negative. All BAP1 mutations identified in blood samples were also present in the matched UM. There were 52 unique mutations in 54 tumors. All were pathogenic or likely pathogenic. A comparison of tumors carrying somatic vs. germline mutations, or no mutations, showed a higher frequency of metastasis in tumors carrying somatic mutations: 74% vs. 36%, P=0.03 and 74% vs. 26% P<0.001, respectively. Tumors with a somatic mutation compared to mutation-negative had an older age of diagnosis of (61.8 vs. 52.2 years, P=0.002), and shorter time to metastasis (16 vs. 26 months, P=0.04). Kaplan-Meier analysis further showed that tumors with somatic (vs. germline) mutations demonstrated a greater metastatic risk (P=0.03). Cox multivariate analysis showed in addition to chromosome-3 monosomy and larger tumor diameter, the presence of BAP1 somatic, but not germline mutations, was significantly associated with risk of metastasis(P=0.02). Personal or family history of BAP1-TPDS was available for 79 of the cases. All eight cases with germline mutations reported a history of BAP1-TPDS, which was significantly greater than what was observed in cases with somatic mutations (10 of 23, P=0.009) or mutation-negative cases (11 of 48, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Defining germline vs. somatic nature of BAP1 mutations in UM can inform the individual about both the risk of metastasis, and the time to metastasis, which are critically important outcomes for the individual. This information can also change the cascade screening and surveillance of family members.

Dataset Information

Gene Expression Profiling and PRAME Status Versus Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging for Prognostication in Uveal Melanoma.

Publications

Gene Expression Profiling and PRAME Status Versus Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging for Prognostication in Uveal Melanoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure