Recent advances have been made in AF treatment, including the role of early rhythm control and landmark clinical trials using ablation therapy. However, some treatment gaps remain, including the creation of durable lesions outside the pulmonary veins and effective treatment of longstanding persistent AF. A novel epicardial-endocardial ablation approach – the hybrid convergent procedure – was developed to combine surgical and catheter ablation techniques into a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to managing AF. In this review, the authors discuss recently published data on hybrid convergent ablation, including results of the CONVERGE clinical trial, in the context of current challenges to treatment of persistent and long-standing persistent AF. The review also aims to provide perspective on outstanding questions and future directions in this area.
Background: Current staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have limited positive predictive value for identifying patients who will experience metastasis.Objective: To develop and validate a gene expression profile (GEP) test for predicting risk for metastasis in localized, high-risk cSCC with the goal of improving risk-directed patient management.Methods: Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary cSCC tissue and clinicopathologic data (n = 586) were collected from 23 independent centers in a prospectively designed study. A GEP signature
Uveal melanoma management is challenging due to its metastatic propensity. DecisionDx-UM is a prospectively validated molecular test that interrogates primary tumor biology to provide objective information about metastatic potential that can be used in determining appropriate patient care. To evaluate the continued clinical validity and utility of DecisionDx-UM, beginning March 2010, 70 patients were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, IRB-approved study to document patient management differences and clinical outcomes associated with low-risk Class 1 and high-risk Class 2 results indicated by DecisionDx-UM testing. Thirty-seven patients in the prospective study were Class 1 and 33 were Class 2. Class 1 patients had 100% 3-year metastasis-free survival compared to 63% for Class 2 (log rank test p = 0.003) with 27.3 median follow-up months in this interim analysis. Class 2 patients received significantly higher-intensity monitoring and more oncology/clinical trial referrals compared to Class 1 patients (Fisher's exact test p = 2.1 × 10−13 and p = 0.04, resp.). The results of this study provide additional, prospective evidence in an independent cohort of patients that Class 1 and Class 2 patients are managed according to the differential metastatic risk indicated by DecisionDx-UM. The trial is registered with Clinical Application of DecisionDx-UM Gene Expression Assay Results (NCT02376920).
Introduction: The prognostic 15-gene expression profile (15-GEP) test for uveal melanoma (UM) predicts metastatic risk based on primary tumor biology. Here we report outcomes from a prospective registry of 15-GEP-tested patients, and a meta-analysis with published cohorts. Objectives: Management and 5-year clinical outcomes following 15-GEP testing were evaluated. Methods: Eighty-nine patients with 15-GEP results were prospectively enrolled at four centers. Physician-recommended management plans were collected, and clinical outcomes tracked every 6 months. Results: Eighty percent of Class 1 (low-risk) patients underwent lowintensity management; all Class 2 (high-risk) patients underwent high-intensity management (p < 0.0001). Median follow-up for event-free patients was 4.9 years. Five Class 1 (10%) and 23 Class 2 (58%) tumors metastasized (p < 0.0001). Five-year Class 1 and 2 metastasis-free survival rates were 90% (81-100%) and 41% (27-62%; p < 0.0001), and melanoma-specific survival rates were 94% (87-100%) and 63% (49-82%; p = 0.0007). Class 2 was the only independent predictor of metastasis and was associated with increased risk for metastasis and mortality by meta-analysis. Conclusions: UM patient management is guided by 15-GEP testing. Class 2 patients were managed more intensely, in accordance with an observed metastatic rate of > 50%; Class 1 patients were safely spared intensive surveillance, resulting in appropriate utilization of healthcare resources.
BackgroundA 15-gene expression profile test has been clinically validated and is widely utilized in newly diagnosed uveal melanoma (UM) patients to assess metastatic potential of the tumor. As most patients are treated with eye-sparing radiotherapy, there is limited tumor tissue available for testing, and technical reliability and success of prognostic testing are critical. This study assessed the analytical performance of the 15-gene expression test for UM and the correlation of molecular class with pathologic characteristics.MethodsInter-assay, intra-assay, inter-instrument/operator, and inter-site experiments were conducted, and concordance of the 15-gene expression profile test results and associated discriminant scores for matched tumor samples were evaluated. Technical success was determined from de-identified clinical reports from January 2010 - May 2016. Pathologic characteristics of enucleated tumors were correlated with molecular class results.ResultsInter-assay concordance on 16 samples run on 3 consecutive days was 100%, and matched discriminant scores were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.9944). Inter-assay concordance of 46 samples assayed within a one year period was 100%, with an R2 value of 0.9747 for the discriminant scores. Intra-assay concordance of 12 samples run concurrently in duplicates was 100%; discriminant score correlation yielded an R2 of 0.9934. Concordance between two sites assessing the same tumors was 100% with an R2 of 0.9818 between discriminant scores. Inter-operator/instrument concordance was 96% for Class 1/2 calls and 90% for Class 1A/1B calls, and the discriminant scores had a correlation R2 of 0.9636. Technical success was 96.3% on 5516 samples tested since 2010. Increased largest basal diameter and thickness were significantly associated with Class 1B and Class 2 vs. Class 1A signatures.ConclusionsThese results show that the 15-gene expression profile test for UM has robust, reproducible performance characteristics. The technical success rate during clinical testing remains as high as first reported during validation. As molecular testing becomes more prevalent for supporting precision medicine efforts, high technical success and reliability are key characteristics when testing such limited and precious samples. The performance of the 15-gene expression profile test in this study should provide confidence to physicians who use the test’s molecular classification to inform patient management decisions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13000-017-0650-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Aim: Define changes in clinical management resulting from use of the prognostic 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for cutaneous melanoma in a surgical oncology practice. Patients & methods: Management plans for 112 consecutively tested patients with stage I–III melanoma were evaluated for duration and number of clinical visits, blood work and imaging. Results: 31-GEP high-risk (class 2; n = 46) patients received increased management compared with low-risk (class 1; n = 66) patients. Test results were most closely associated with follow-up and imaging. Of class 1 patients, 65% received surveillance intensity within guidelines for stage I–IIA patients; 98% of class 2 patients received surveillance intensity equal to stage IIB–IV patients. Conclusion: We suggest clinical follow-up and metastatic screening be adjusted according to 31-GEP test results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.