Reassessment of Published Comparative Performance Model for 31-GEP and CP-GEP in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Prediction in Cutaneous Melanoma
Main Article Content
Keywords
31-GEP, CP-GEP, sentinel lymph node biopsy, cutaneous melanoma, Melanoma, GEP, 31-gene expression profile, 31-Gene Expression Profile, integrated 31-gene expression profile, i31-GEP, i31, Castle DecisionDx, merlin, Dermatology Guidelines, treatment guidelines
Abstract
Background A recent large study of the CP-GEP for prediction of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) results in cutaneous melanoma (CM) failed to meet its primary endpoint of attaining a negative predictive value (NPV) >95%, indicating the test alone cannot be safely used to guide decisions to forgo SLNB under current clinical standards. In a separate analysis, CP-GEP performance from the study was compared to another SLNB predictive test, i31-GEP/i31-SLNB, by reanalyzing the largest i31-SLNB validation cohort. However, the reanalyzed data used in the analysis does not reflect the validation cohort, misrepresenting i31-SLNB performance.
Objective To detail calculation errors in the comparative model of the i31-SLNB and CP-GEP for predicting SLNB positivity, and re-evaluate the tests’ performances by reconstructing the analyses using the datasets from the original publications.
Methods From patients who underwent SLNB with T1-T3 tumors, NPVs were calculated and false omission rate (FOR=1−NPV) modeled as a function of prevalence for each of the i31-SLNB and CP-GEP. NPVs among all SLN-assessed patients in other published United States-based cohorts of varying SLN positivity prevalences were analyzed.
Results In each respective cohort, 96.1% NPV for the i31-SLNB (n=1,152) and 92.9% NPV for the CP-GEP (n=1,761) were observed. Modeled FOR indicated less frequent false negatives for the i31-SLNB than CP-GEP across SLN positivity prevalences. Further, in reported United States-based cohorts, the i31-SLNB had 100% NPV in two additional cohorts with 20.5% and 6.4% SLN positivity prevalence, while the CP-GEP had 93.8% NPV in one additional cohort with 21.2% SLN positivity prevalence.
Conclusion Although both tests were designed to attain >95% NPV in prediction of CM SLN metastasis in SLNB-eligible patients, only the i31-SLNB met this benchmark, supporting its utility as the only GEP to identify patients at low risk (<5%) who may forgo SLNB. In contrast, the CP-GEP test designates a larger proportion of patients as low risk but does not achieve a NPV >95%, suggesting that SLNB should still be considered rather than omitted based on this result alone.
References
2. Chen J, Xu Y, Zhou Y, Wang Y, Zhu H, Shi Y. Prognostic role of sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with cutaneous melanoma: A retrospective study of surveillance, epidemiology, and end-result population-based data. Oncotarget. 2016;7(29):45671-45677. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.10140
3. Hieken TJ, Egger ME, Angeles CV, et al. Gene Expression Profile-Based Test to Predict Melanoma Sentinel Node Status: The MERLIN_001 Study. JAMA Surg. Published online October 22, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2025.4399
4. Bellomo D, Gross C, Pazhava A, Perniciaro C, Dwarkasing J, Meves A. Flawed Benchmarks and Biased Cohorts: Reassessing the Evidence for CP-GEP (Merlin) Versus 31-GEP (DecisionDx-Melanoma). Int J Dermatol. Published online August 5, 2025. doi:10.1111/ijd.70000
5. Whitman ED, Koshenkov VP, Gastman BR, et al. Integrating 31-Gene Expression Profiling With Clinicopathologic Features to Optimize Cutaneous Melanoma Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction. JCO Precision Oncology. 2021;(5):1466-1479. doi:10.1200/PO.21.00162
6. Prieto PA, Ferris LK, Guenther JM. Comparing Two Gene Expression Profile Tests to Standard of Care for Identifying Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma at Low Risk of Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity. Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis. 2025;5(3):261-267. doi:10.21873/cdp.10438
7. Yousaf A, Tjien-Fooh FJ, Rentroia-Pacheco B, et al. Validation of CP-GEP (Merlin Assay) for predicting sentinel lymph node metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma patients: A U.S. cohort study. International Journal of Dermatology. 2021;60(7):851-856. doi:10.1111/ijd.15594
8. Kriza C, Martin B, Bailey CN, Bennett J. Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with clinical and pathologic features can provide personalized precision estimates for sentinel lymph node positivity: an independent performance cohort. World J Surg Oncol. 2024;22(1):228. doi:10.1186/s12957-024-03512-4
9. Sadurní MB, Meves A. Breslow thickness 2.0: Why gene expression profiling is a step toward better patient selection for sentinel lymph node biopsies. Mod Pathol. Published online June 2, 2022:1-6. doi:10.1038/s41379-022-01101-y
10. Bellomo D, Arias-Mejias SM, Ramana C, et al. Model Combining Tumor Molecular and Clinicopathologic Risk Factors Predicts Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma. JCO Precision Oncology. 2020;(4):319-334. doi:10.1200/PO.19.00206
11. Guenther JM, Ward A, Martin BJ, et al. A prospective, multicenter analysis of the integrated 31-gene expression profile test for sentinel lymph node biopsy (i31-GEP for SLNB) test demonstrates reduced number of unnecessary SLNBs in patients with cutaneous melanoma. World J Surg Onc. 2025;23(1):5. doi:10.1186/s12957-024-03640-x
12. Guenther JM, Ward A, Martin BJ, et al. A Prospective, Multicenter Analysis of Recurrence-Free Survival After Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Decisions Influenced by the 31-GEP. Cancer Med. 2025;14(7):e70839. doi:10.1002/cam4.70839
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honor or reputation.
Authors retain copyright in their work and license the publisher to publish the content. The publisher is the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, with production and publishing support provided by OJS, Open Journal Systems,see https://pkp.sfu.
Prior to January 2022, authors transferred copyright to the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine. However, all articles are freely available to anyone in the world. There are no subscription fees, page charges, or article processing charges.