Transcriptomic versus Chromosomal Prognostic Markers and Clinical Outcome in Uveal Melanoma

Purpose: To compare a gene expression–based classifier versus the standard genetic prognostic marker, monosomy 3, for predicting metastasis in uveal melanoma. Experimental Design: Gene expression profiling, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) were done on 67 primary uveal melanomas. Clinical and pathologic prognostic factors were also assessed. Variables were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards, Kaplan-Meier analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Results: The gene expression–based molecular classifier assigned 27 tumors to class 1 (low risk) and 25 tumors to class 2 (high risk). By Cox univariate proportional hazards, class 2 signature (P = 0.0001), advanced patient age (P = 0.01), and scleral invasion (P = 0.007) were the only variables significantly associated with metastasis. Only the class 2 signature was needed to optimize predictive accuracy in a Cox multivariate model. A less significant association with metastasis was observed for monosomy 3 detected by aCGH (P = 0.076) and FISH (P = 0.127). The sensitivity and specificity for the molecular classifier (84.6% and 92.9%, respectively) were superior to monosomy 3 detected by aCGH (58.3% and 85.7%, respectively) and FISH (50.0% and 72.7%, respectively). Positive and negative predictive values (91.7% and 86.7%, respectively) and positive and negative likelihood ratios (11.9 and 0.2, respectively) for the molecular classifier were also superior to those for monosomy 3. Conclusions: Molecular classification based on gene expression profiling of the primary tumor was superior to monosomy 3 and clinicopathologic prognostic factors for predicting metastasis in uveal melanoma.

[1]  J. Rootman,et al.  Monosomy 3 and isochromosome 8q in a uveal melanoma. , 1990, Cancer genetics and cytogenetics.

[2]  Menggang Yu,et al.  Individualized predictions of disease progression following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  M. Volm,et al.  Pharmacogenetics for individualized cancer chemotherapy. , 2005, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[4]  J. Gray,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridization in the detection of DNA copy number abnormalities in uveal melanoma. , 1994, Cancer research.

[5]  I. Rennie,et al.  Multiple locations on chromosome 3 are the targets of specific deletions in uveal melanoma , 2006, Eye.

[6]  D. Gutmann,et al.  NF1 deletions in S-100 protein-positive and negative cells of sporadic and neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1)-associated plexiform neurofibromas and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. , 2001, The American journal of pathology.

[7]  K. Jöckel,et al.  Tumor classification based on gene expression profiling shows that uveal melanomas with and without monosomy 3 represent two distinct entities. , 2003, Cancer research.

[8]  D. Horsman,et al.  Acquired homozygosity (isodisomy) of chromosome 3 during clonal evolution of a uveal melanoma: Association with morphologic heterogeneity , 1996, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[9]  J. Harbour,et al.  Prognostic testing in uveal melanoma by transcriptomic profiling of fine needle biopsy specimens. , 2006, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[10]  Justis P. Ehlers,et al.  Gene Expression Profiling in Uveal Melanoma Reveals Two Molecular Classes and Predicts Metastatic Death , 2004, Cancer Research.

[11]  M. Sandinha,et al.  Monosomy 3 predicts death but not time until death in choroidal melanoma. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[12]  S. Kennedy,et al.  Assessment of chromosome 3 copy number in ocular melanoma using fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 1997, Cancer genetics and cytogenetics.

[13]  J. Harbour.  Clinical Overview of Uveal Melanoma: Introduction to Tumors of the Eye , 2003 .

[14]  A. de Klein,et al.  Clinical and cytogenetic analyses in uveal melanoma. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  N. Bornfeld,et al.  Nonrandom chromosomal abnormalities in primary uveal melanoma. , 1990, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  N. Naus,et al.  Characterization of complex chromosomal abnormalities in uveal melanoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization, spectral karyotyping, and comparative genomic hybridization , 2001, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[17]  L. Bonaldi,et al.  In vivo Detection of Monosomy 3 in Eyes with Medium-Sized Uveal Melanoma using Transscleral Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy , 2006, European journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  W. Kuo,et al.  High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays , 1998, Nature Genetics.

[19]  Justis P. Ehlers,et al.  Functional gene expression analysis uncovers phenotypic switch in aggressive uveal melanomas. , 2006, Cancer research.

[20]  R. Rees,et al.  Cytogenetic findings in six posterior uveal melanomas: involvement of chromosomes 3, 6, and 8. , 1991, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[21]  M. Parsons,et al.  Prediction of prognosis in patients with uveal melanoma using fluorescence in situ hybridisation , 2001, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[22]  N. Bornfeld,et al.  Prognostic implications of monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma , 1996, The Lancet.

[23]  R. Folberg,et al.  Association between microarray gene expression signature and extravascular matrix patterns in primary uveal melanomas. , 2005, American journal of ophthalmology.