English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Is the risk of metastasis equivalent between a class 2 tumor (GEP) and monosomy 3 tumor as determined by MLPA? The concordance between these tests in patients with uveal melanoma undergoing a prognostic fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) has not been studied until recently. In a retrospective study, GEP and FISH (44 patients) or GEP and MLPA (49 patients – 6 technical failures GEP [3] and MLPA [3] ) prognostication was performed on consecutive patients with posterior uveal melanoma (iris melanoma excluded) over a period of 2 years (2012–2014) [8] . In 43 patients, with available results of both GEP and MLPA, the GEP classification was discordant with monosomy 3 in 16% (7/43 tumors). More specifically, 19% (6/31) of the tumors categorized as class 1 (GEP) had monosomy 3, and disomy 3 was observed in 8% (1/12) of the tumors categorized as class 2. In simple terms, in 6 (19%) patients, a contradictory prognosis would have been rendered; good prognosis by GEP and bad prognosis by MLPA. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, in 1 (8%) patient, a contradictory prognosis would have been rendered; bad prognosis by GEP and good prognosis by MLPA. Several explanations have been put forward to elucidate the observed external discordance between 2 validated commercial prognostication tests. The first is the evidence of tumor heterogeneity and of internal discorOver the last 2 decades, several prognostic tests have been developed for assisting clinicians to predict the metastatic potential of uveal melanoma, including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), comparative genomic hybridization, microsatellite analysis, single-nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and gene expression profiling (GEP) [1] . Naturally, the questions regarding concordance between the tests and superiority of one test over the other become relevant. There are only a few reports wherein 2 prognostic tests have been performed on a given tumor sample and results evaluated for concordance (SNP/FISH [2] , MLPA/FISH [3] , and GEP/SNP) [4] . At present, only 2 prognostication tests – MLPA (Impact Genetics, Toronto, Canada) and GEP (DecisionDxUM; Castle Biosciences, Inc., Pheonix, Arizona, USA) – are commercially available. Therefore, any comparison of these 2 tests has important implications for clinical usage. In the MLPA test, chromosome 3 loss (monosomy 3) and chromosome 8q gain are cytogenetic markers predictive of poor prognosis, and the presence of chromosome 6p gain is suggestive of good prognosis [5, 6] . On the other hand, GEP testing categorizes uveal melanoma as class 1 or class 2, corresponding to a low and a high metastatic risk, respectively [4, 7] . Received: March 14, 2017 Accepted after revision: March 15, 2017 Published online: April 14, 2017

Prognostication for Uveal Melanoma: Are Two Tests Better than One