Cytopathology and Prognostic Accuracy of 15-GEP/PRAME
Importance: Gene expression profiling (GEP) reliably predicts metastatic uveal melanoma risk and is used to manage uveal melanoma (UM) in patients with this diagnosis. Efforts to refine molecular prognostication continue. Objective: To determine if confirmatory cytopathology findings influence the prognostic accuracy of a commercially available GEP/Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME) assay. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Collaborative Ocular Oncology Group 2 study, a prospective cohort study, was conducted from 2017 to 2020 with follow-up recorded at 6-month intervals. This was a multicenter study that included patients with choroidal and/or ciliary body melanoma and results from a 15-GEP and PRAME RNA expression (15-GEP/PRAME) assay. Patients with iris tumors or less than 6 months' follow-up were excluded. Study data were analyzed from April 2025 to July 2026. Exposures: 15-GEP/PRAME, cytopathology, and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Main Outcomes and Measures: Metastatic uveal melanoma rates in patients who had 15-GEP/PRAME and confirmatory cytopathology (CCP) results confirming or suspicious for UM (GEP+CCP) were compared with those who had 15-GEP/PRAME and no cytopathology performed, or unknown or nondiagnostic cytopathology results (GEP only). UM-associated variants identified by NGS were also evaluated. Results: Of 1537 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [13.4] years; 787 male [51.2%]), 727 (47.3%) had CCP results, and 810 (52.7%) had nondiagnostic cytopathology results or no cytopathology performed. Class 2/PRAME+ tumors were more common (136 of 727 [18.7%]) in the GEP+CCP group than in the GEP-only group (72 of 810 [8.9%]; 9.8% difference; 95% CI, 6.4-13.3; P <.001), whereas class 1/PRAME- tumors were less common (330 of 727 [45.4%] vs 495 of 810 [61.1%]; 15.7% difference; 95% CI, 10.8-20.6; P <.001). In patients with GEP+CCP, 22.7% (n = 165) developed metastasis vs 15.4% (n = 125) in patients with GEP only (7.3% difference, 95% CI, 3.3-11.2; P < .001). Adjusting for 15-GEP/PRAME status, there were no differences in metastasis rates between CCP groups. Of 1327 patients with successful NGS, 94.1% (605 of 643) in the GEP+CCP group and 71.9% (492 of 684) in the GEP-only group had a UM-associated variant (22.2% difference, 95% CI, 18.3-26.0; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study reveal that no differences in metastasis outcomes were observed between patients with and without CCP within any GEP/PRAME categories. UM-associated variants were found less frequently in the GEP-only group than in the GEP+CCP group. In this cohort, 15-GEP/PRAME classification without CCP retained prognostic validity, supporting its clinical consideration in guiding metastatic surveillance in cases in which cytopathology is unavailable.
Authors
- Devron H. Char
- Cameron G. Javid
- Kisha Piggott (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6276-8694)
- Michael M. Altaweel (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1554-3211)
- Michael C. Cusick (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5480-5777)
- Scott C. N. Oliver (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3654-6502)
- Timothy S. Fuller (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-1663)
- Basil K. Williams (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7257-026X)
- Miguel Angel Materin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9097-9512)
- Ivana K. Kim (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0310-6129)
- Scott D. Walter (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3492-4650)
- Amy C Schefler (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9829-8164)
- Alison H. Skalet (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4690-7957)
- Prithvi Mruthyunjaya (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1087-9736)
- Zélia M. Corrêa (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-3757)
- Tony Tsai (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6733-9282)
- David Alan Reichstein (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2673-876X)
- Anne Marie Lane (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7321-4419)
- Ezekiel Weis (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6862-0850)
- Hakan Demirci (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-1476)
- Dan S. Gombos (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2867-6320)
- Peter G. Hovland
- Antonio Capone (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3459-2393)
- Jill Razor Wells (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-3022)
- Thomas M. Aaberg
- Shilpa J. Desai (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8419-998X)
- J. William Harbour
- John Mason
Institutions
- Tufts University (US)
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US)
- Tufts Medical Center (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- Emory University (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Duke University (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- California Retina Consultants (US)
- Retina Consultants of Texas (US)
- Associated Retinal Consultants (US)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Tumori Foundation (US)
- Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- Tennessee Retina (US)
- Retina Specialists of Michigan (US)
- Texas Retina Associates (United States) (US)
- OHSU Knight Cancer Institute
- Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Hartford Financial Services (United States)
- University of Virginia (US)
- University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US)
- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
- Stanford University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- JAMA Ophthalmology
- Published
- 2026-10-15
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2026.4378
- Primary Topic
- Ocular Oncology and Treatments
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00