Advertisement

Im Focus Onkologie

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 18–20 | Cite as

Prognostische Genexpressionstests

Personalisiertes Risikomanagement für das maligne Melanom

  • Uwe Reinhold
  • Thomas Dirschka
Dermatoonkologie Fortbildung

Genexpressionstests haben sich in der Tumorversorgung zu einer wertvollen Methodik entwickelt, um die Einschätzung des individuellen Rückfallrisikos zu optimieren. Auch für das maligne Melanom der Haut stehen nun derartige Tests zur Verfügung. Sie können Ärzten helfen, gemeinsam mit ihren Patienten die weitere Therapie dem individuellen Risiko anzupassen.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Eggermont AMM, Robert C. New drugs in melanoma: it’s a whole new world. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(14):2150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schadendorf D, Hauschild A. Melanoma in 2013: Melanoma—the run of success continues. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11(2):75–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu Z et al. The rapidly evolving therapies for advanced melanoma — Towards immunotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, and beyond. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;99:91–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meckbach D et al. Survival according to BRAF-V600 tumor mutations — an analysis of 437 patients with primary melanoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomas NE et al. Association Between NRAS and BRAF Mutational Status and Melanoma- Specific Survival Among Patients With Higher-Risk Primary Melanoma. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(3):359–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balch CM et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerami P et al. Development of a prognostic genetic signature to predict the metastatic risk associated with cutaneous melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(1):175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Brunner G et al. Increased expression of the tumor suppressor PLZF is a continuous predictor of long-term survival in malignant melanoma patients. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2008;23(4):451–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brunner G et al. A nine-gene signature predicting clinical outcome in cutaneous melanoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139(2):249–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brunner G et al. Independent validation of a prognostic gene-signature based risk score in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded melanomas. Cancer Res. 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstr 2861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whiteman DC et al. More people die from thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm) than from thick melanomas (> 4 mm) in Queensland, Australia. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(4):1190–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition. New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morton DL et al. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(7):599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Ploeg AP et al. Prognosis in patients with sentinel node-positive melanoma is accurately defined by the combined Rotterdam tumor load and Dewar topography criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2206–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dermatologisches Zentrum BonnBonnDeutschland
  2. 2.

Personalised recommendations