Universal Risk Stratification in Stage I–III Cutaneous Melanoma Using 31-gene Expression Profiling: A Single-Center Study - Report - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Comprehensive Risk Assessment for Stage I–III Cutaneous Melanoma Through 31-Gene Expression Profiling: Insights from a Single-Center Investigation

  • By

  • Daniel B. Gehle

  • Philip W. Morgan

  • Emme M. Fitts

  • Nathaniel L. Hauser

  • Chelsea R. Olson

  • Andrew M. Fleming

  • Julia Pedo Freitas

  • Feng Liu-Smith

  • Simonne S. Nouer

  • Andrew J. Murphy

  • Martin D. Fleming

  • June 1, 2026

Share

Clinical Report: Comprehensive Risk Assessment for Stage I–III Cutaneous Melanoma

Overview

This study evaluates the performance of the 31-gene expression profiling (GEP) assay in predicting long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM) stages I–III.

Background

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is often diagnosed at early stages, yet many patients classified as low-risk by traditional methods experience disease progression. Current guidelines do not recommend SLNB for certain low-risk tumors, highlighting the need for improved risk stratification tools. Gene expression profiling (GEP) assays have emerged as potential prognostic tools, but their integration into standard care remains debated.

Data Highlights

No numerical data or trial data provided in the source material.

Key Findings

  • The 31-gene expression profiling assay (DecisionDx-Melanoma) was evaluated for its ability to predict distant metastasis and melanoma-specific survival.
  • GEP serves as an independent predictor of survival outcomes when accounting for clinicopathologic factors.
  • Integration of GEP testing may reduce the number of unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsies.
  • In the multicenter DECIDE trial, a decision-making algorithm incorporating GEP reduced SLNBs by 18.5%.
  • Current consensus statements emphasize the need for more robust data before GEP can replace established staging methods.

Clinical Implications

The integration of GEP into routine clinical practice should be approached cautiously until further validation is available.

Conclusion

Further independent validation is necessary before widespread clinical adoption of GEP.

Related Resources & Content

  1. Castle Biosciences Inc., Comprehensive Risk Assessment for Stage I–III Cutaneous Melanoma, 2023 -- Insights from a Single-Center Investigation
  2. The ASCO Post — Immune Analysis of On-Treatment Longitudinal Biopsies Predicts Response to Melanoma Immunotherapy
  3. The ASCO Post — Treatment Paradigm in Advanced Melanoma Poised for Change… Again
  4. The ASCO Post — Machine Learning Algorithms May Help Predict Response to Immunotherapy in Patients With Advanced Melanoma
  5. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology - Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2026
  6. The 31-gene expression profile as a guide to better risk-aligned care decisions for patients with stage I–III cutaneous melanoma: An NCI-SEER analysis. | Journal of Clinical Oncology

Original Source(s)

Related Content