Browsing by Author "Moody, Brent R."

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Inconsistent Associations Between Risk Factor Profiles and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy (ART) Treatment in Patients with Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Utility of the 40-Gene Expression Profile to Refine ART Guidance
    (Springer, 2024) Moody, Brent R.; Farberg, Aaron S.; Somani, Ally-Khan; Taylor, Walton A.; Dermatology, School of Medicine
    Introduction: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations for adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) use are similar for High Risk and Very High Risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with negative post-surgical margins. Although studies report reductions in disease progression following ART treatment, ART use is likely inconsistent when guided by available risk factors. This study evaluated the association of ART with clinical risk factors in ART-treated and untreated patients and showed the clinical utility of the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) for guiding ART. Methods: A multicenter study of 954 patients was conducted with institutional review board (IRB) approval. The 40-GEP test was performed using primary tumor tissue from patients with either a minimum of 3 years of follow-up or a documented regional or distant metastasis. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis identified patterns of clinical risk factors for ART-treated patients, then identified untreated patients with matching risk factor profiles. Results were cross-referenced to 40-GEP test results to determine utility of the test to guide ART. Results: Analysis demonstrated inconsistent implementation of ART for eligible patients. Cluster analysis identified four patient profiles based on clusters of risk factors and, notably, matching profiles in ART-treated and untreated patients. Further, the analysis identified patients who received but could have deferred ART on the basis of 40-GEP test result and biologically low risk of metastasis, and untreated patients who likely would have benefitted from ART on the basis of their 40-GEP test result. Conclusions: ART guidance is not determined by the presence of specific clinicopathologic factors, with treated and untreated patients sharing the same risk factor profiles. cSCC risk determination based on NCCN recommendations for clinical factor assessment results in inconsistent use of ART. Including tumor biology-based prognostic information from the 40-GEP refines risk and identifies patients who are most appropriate and likely to benefit from ART, and those that can consider deferring ART.