验证基因表达谱（GEP）检测在葡萄膜黑色素瘤患者中的预后应用价值。确定将肿瘤大小与GEP分类相结合是否可以提供额外的预后价值。一项回顾性分析。在耶鲁纽黑文医院、加州大学圣地亚哥分校和斯隆·凯特琳癌症中心接受脉络膜黑色素瘤诊断的患者。搜集患者的人口统计学和临床数据以及肿瘤特征。使用单变量和多变量Cox风险回归分析评估肿瘤特征和GEP分类与转移为结果之间的关联。转移无病生存期（MFS）。在研究中包括337名个体，其中87名患了转移。对于发生转移的患者，平均随访时间为37.2个月，而未发生转移的患者为55.0个月。更厚的肿瘤和GEP 2分类（与GEP 1相比）的肿瘤与更高的转移几率显著相关。肿瘤厚度的预后应用价值优于GEP分类（Wald统计值分别为40.7和24.2）。GEP 2类肿瘤，且厚度大于等于7.0毫米的肿瘤比厚度小于7.0毫米的肿瘤具有更高的转移几率（HR为3.23（1.61-6.51）），而GEP 1类肿瘤，且厚度大于等于9.0毫米的肿瘤比厚度小于9.0毫米的肿瘤具有更高的转移几率（HR为2.07（0.86-4.99））。GEP 1A型肿瘤患者和GEP 1B型肿瘤患者之间的转移无病生存期没有差异（p = 0.8）。GEP 2型肿瘤患者的观察到的5年MFS为47.5％（36.0％-62.8％）。肿瘤大小是预测转移的最重要因素，并且独立于GEP分类提供了额外的预后价值。此外，与Castle Bioscience报告的估计值相比，GEP 2型肿瘤的转移率较低，并且在GEP 1A型和GEP 1B型肿瘤之间没有转移率的差异。这表明，在依靠GEP进行预测时应考虑肿瘤大小，并且GEP 1A或1B肿瘤的患者可能受益于相同的转移监测方案。版权所有©2023 Elsevier Inc.

Validate the prognostic utility of the gene expression profile (GEP) testing in patients with uveal melanoma. Determine whether combining tumor size with the GEP classification provides additional prognostic value.A retrospective analysis.Patients diagnosed with choroidal melanoma examined at Yale New Haven Hospital, University of California San Diego, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.Patients' demographic and clinical data, and tumor characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate cox hazard regression analysis were used to assess the association between tumor characteristics and GEP classification with metastasis as an outcome.Metastasis-free survival (MFS).Of the 337 individuals included in the study, 87 developed metastases. The mean follow-up time was 37.2 months for patients who metastasized and 55.0 months among those who did not. Tumors of larger thickness and a GEP 2 classification (vs GEP 1) were significantly associated with higher odds of metastasis. Tumor thickness had better prognostic utility than GEP classification (Wald statistic values 40.7 and 24.2, respectively). GEP 2 tumors with a thickness of 7.0 mm or greater were associated with higher odds of metastasis than tumors with a thickness less than 7.0 mm (HR of 3.23 (1.61 - 6.51)), whereas GEP 1 tumors with a thickness of 9.0 mm or greater were associated with higher odds of metastasis than tumors with thickness less than 9.0 mm (HR of 2.07 (0.86 - 4.99)). There was no difference in metastasis-free survival between patients with GEP 1A tumors compared to those with GEP 1B tumors (p = 0.8). Patients with GEP 2 tumors had an observed 5-year MFS of 47.5% (36.0% - 62.8%).Tumor size was the most significant predictor of metastasis and provided additional prognostic value independent of GEP classification. In addition, rates of metastasis for GEP 2 tumors were lower than estimates reported by Castle Bioscience, and there was no difference in rates of metastasis between GEP 1A and GEP 1B tumors. This indicates that tumor size should be accounted for when relying on GEP for prognostication and that patients with GEP 1A or 1B tumors may benefit from the same metastatic surveillance protocols.Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.