Utility of a 31-gene expression profile for predicting outcomes in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma referred for sentinel node biopsy

The 31-gene expression profile test informs sentinel lymph node biopsy decisions in patients with cutaneous melanoma: results of a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The 31-gene expression profile test (Class 1A: low-risk; 1B/2A: intermediate-risk; 2B: high-risk) is validated to identify patients with cutaneous melanoma who can safely forego sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The objective of the current study is to quantify SLNB reduction by clinicians using 31-GEP.

METHODS

Patients with T1-T2 tumors eligible for SLNB were seen by surgical oncologists (89.1%), dermatologists (7.8%), and medical oncologists (3.1%). After receiving 31-GEP results but before SLNB, clinicians were asked which clinical and pathological features influenced SLNB decisions (n = 191). The Exact binomial test was used to compare SLNB procedure rates to a contemporary study (78% SLNB baseline rate). Logistic regression modeling (odds ratio [OR], 95% CI) was used to identify features associated with SLNB procedure rates.

RESULTS

One hundred clinical decisions (52.4%) were influenced by the 31-GEP to forego SLNB and 70% (70/100) were not performed. Of the 30 performed, 0% (0/30) were positive. The 31-GEP influenced sixty-three clinical decisions (33.0%) to perform SLNB, and 92.1% (58/63) were performed. There was a clinically meaningful 29.4% reduction of SLNBs performed in patients with a Class 1A result relative to the baseline rate of 78.0% (p < .01). In patients ≥55 or ≥65-year-old, SLNB reduction was 32.3% (p < .01), 28.3% (p < .01), respectively. Overall, 85.3% of decisions relating to SLNB were influenced by 31-GEP results.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, multicenter study, clinicians demonstrated clinically meaningful use of the 31-GEP test to forego or pursue SLNB in patients with T1-T2 tumors resulting in a significant, risk appropriate decrease in SLNBs.

Molecular testing in melanoma for the surgical pathologist

The diagnostic work-up of melanocytic tumours has undergone significant changes in the last years following the exponential growth of molecular assays. For the practising pathologist it is often difficult to sort through the multitude of different tests that are currently available for clinical use. The molecular tests used in melanocytic pathology can be broadly divided into four categories: (1) tests that predict response to systemic therapy in melanoma; (2) tests that predict prognosis in melanoma; (3) tests useful in determining the type or class of melanocytic tumour; and (4) tests useful in the differential diagnosis of naevus versus melanoma (primarily used as an aid in the diagnosis of histologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions). This review will present an updated synopsis of major molecular ancillary tests used in clinical practice.

Optimizing treatment approaches for patients with cutaneous melanoma by integrating clinical and pathologic features with the 31-gene expression profile test

BACKGROUND

Many patients with low-stage cutaneous melanoma will experience tumor recurrence, metastasis, or death, and many higher staged patients will not.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an algorithm by integrating the 31-gene expression profile test with clinicopathologic data for an optimized, personalized risk of recurrence (integrated 31 risk of recurrence [i31-ROR]) or death and use i31-ROR in conjunction with a previously validated algorithm for precise sentinel lymph node positivity risk estimates (i31-SLNB) for optimized treatment plan decisions.

METHODS

Cox regression models for ROR were developed (n = 1581) and independently validated (n = 523) on a cohort with stage I-III melanoma. Using National Comprehensive Cancer Network cut points, i31-ROR performance was evaluated using the midpoint survival rates between patients with stage IIA and stage IIB disease as a risk threshold.

RESULTS

Patients with a low-risk i31-ROR result had significantly higher 5-year recurrence-free survival (91% vs 45%, P < .001), distant metastasis-free survival (95% vs 53%, P < .001), and melanoma-specific survival (98% vs 73%, P < .001) than patients with a high-risk i31-ROR result. A combined i31-SLNB/ROR analysis identified 44% of patients who could forego sentinel lymph node biopsy while maintaining high survival rates (>98%) or were restratified as being at a higher or lower risk of recurrence or death.

LIMITATIONS

Multicenter, retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

Integrating clinicopathologic features with the 31-GEP optimizes patient risk stratification compared to clinicopathologic features alone.

Improved cutaneous melanoma survival stratification through integration of 31-gene expression profile testing with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Staging

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) survival is assessed using averaged data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8). However, subsets of AJCC8 stages I-III have better or worse survival than the predicted average value. The objective of this study was to determine if the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for CM can further risk-stratify melanoma-specific mortality within each AJCC8 stage. This retrospective multicenter study of 901 archival CM samples obtained from patients with stages I-III CM assessed 31-GEP test predictions of 5-year melanoma-specific survival (MSS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. In stage I-III CM population, patients with a Class 2B result had a lower 5-year MSS (77.8%) than patients with a Class 1A result (98.7%) and log-rank testing demonstrated significant stratification of MSS [χ2 (2df, n = 901) = 99.7, P < 0.001). Within each stage, 31-GEP data provided additional risk stratification, including in stage I [χ2 (2df, n = 415) = 11.3, P = 0.004]. Cox regression multivariable analysis showed that the 31-GEP test was a significant predictor of melanoma-specific mortality (MSM) in patients with stage I-III CM [hazard ratio: 6.44 (95% confidence interval: 2.61-15.85), P < 0.001]. This retrospective study focuses on Class 1A versus Class 2B results. Intermediate results (Class 1B/2A) comprised 21.6% of cases with survival rates between Class 1A and 2B, and similar to 5-year MSS AJCC stage values. Data from the 31-GEP test significantly differentiates MSM into lower (Class 1A) and higher risk (Class 2B) groups within each AJCC8 stage. Incorporating 31-GEP results into AJCC8 survival calculations has the potential to more precisely assess survival and enhance management guidance.

Expert Consensus on the Use of Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Tests for the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus from the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group

BACKGROUND

Prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma relies on historical, clinicopathological, and phenotypic risk factors according to American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines but may not account for a patient's individual additional genetic risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To review the available literature regarding commercially available gene expression profile (GEP) tests and their use in the management of cutaneous melanoma.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted for original, English-language studies or meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2021 on commercially available GEP tests in cutaneous melanoma prognosis, clinical decision-making regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy, and real-world efficacy. After the literature review, the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group, an expert panel of dermatologists with specialized training in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis and management, utilized a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus statements regarding prognostic gene expression profile tests. Statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote of > 80%.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 1064 studies/meta-analyses that met the search criteria. Of these, we included 21 original articles and meta-analyses that studied the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma; Castle Biosciences, Inc.), five original articles that studied the 11-GEP test (Melagenix; NeraCare GmbH), and four original articles that studied the 8-GEP test with clinicopathological factors (Merlin; 8-GEP + CP; SkylineDx B.V.) in this review. Six statements received supermajority approval and were adopted by the panel.

CONCLUSION

GEP tests provide additional, reproducible information for dermatologists to consider within the larger framework of the eighth edition of the AJCC and NCCN cutaneous melanoma guidelines when counseling regarding prognosis and when considering a sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Using a 31-Gene Expression Profile Test to Stratify Patients with Stage I-II Cutaneous Melanoma According to Recurrence Risk: Update to a Prospective, Multicenter Study

Simple Summary

Many people with skin cancer will have their cancer come back. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test can help predict if a cancer has a low (Class 1) or high (Class 2) chance of returning. This study looked at 86 patients with early skin cancer to see how well the 31-GEP test predicted if their cancer would return. None of the patients with a Class 1 GEP result had their cancer return within 3 years, but one-fourth of patients with a Class 2 result did. This study showed that the 31-GEP test can help predict if a patient’s skin cancer will return. Accurate risk prediction can help doctors make better treatment plans for patients with skin cancer.

Abstract

Background: Fifteen to forty percent of patients with localized cutaneous melanoma (CM) (stages I–II) will experience disease relapse. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) uses gene expression data from the primary tumor in conjunction with clinicopathologic features to refine patient prognosis. The study’s objective was to evaluate 31-GEP risk stratification for disease-free survival (DFS) in a previously published cohort with longer follow-up. Methods: Patients with stage IB–II CM (n = 86) were prospectively tested with the 31-GEP. Follow-up time increased from 2.2 to 3.9 years. Patient outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results: A Class 2B result was a significant predictor of 3-year DFS (hazard ratio (HR) 8.4, p = 0.008) in univariate analysis. The 31-GEP significantly stratified patients by risk of relapse (p = 0.005). A Class 2B result was associated with a lower 3-year DFS (75.0%) than a Class 1A result (100%). The 31-GEP had a high sensitivity (77.8%) and negative predictive value (95.0%). Conclusions: The 31-GEP is a significant predictor of disease relapse in patients with stage IB–II melanoma and accurately stratified patients by risk of relapse.

The 31-gene expression profile stratifies recurrence and metastasis risk in patients with cutaneous melanoma

Aim: Sentinel node biopsy is a prognostic indicator of melanoma recurrence. We hypothesized that adding the primary melanoma molecular signature from the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test could refine the risk of recurrence prognosis for patients with stage I-III melanoma. Materials & methods: Four hundred thirty-eight patients with stage I-III melanoma consecutively tested with the 31-GEP were retrospectively analyzed. The 31-GEP stratified patients as low-risk (Class 1A), intermediate-risk (Class 1B/2A) or high risk (Class 2B) of recurrence or metastasis. Results: The 31-GEP significantly stratified patient risk for recurrence-free survival (p < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (p < 0.001) and melanoma-specific survival (p < 0.001) and was a significant, independent predictor of metastatic recurrence (hazard ratio: 5.38; p = 0.014). Conclusion: The 31-GEP improves prognostic accuracy in stage I-III melanoma.