Clinical validation of a prognostic 11-gene expression profiling score in prospectively collected FFPE tissue of patients with AJCC v8 stage II cutaneous melanoma

Sentinel lymph node risk prognostication in primary cutaneous melanoma through tissue-based profiling, potentially redefining the need for sentinel lymph node biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) is pivotal in the contemporary staging of cutaneous melanoma. In this review, we examine advanced molecular testing platforms like gene expression profiling (GEP) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) as tools for predicting the prognosis of sentinel lymph nodes. We compare these innovative approaches with traditional staging assessments. Additionally, we delve into the shared genetic and protein markers between GEP and IHC tests and their relevance to melanoma biology, exploring their prognostic and predictive characteristics. Finally, we assess alternative methods to potentially obviate the need for SLNB altogether.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress in adjuvant melanoma therapy has diminished the necessity of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) while underscoring the importance of accurately identifying high-risk stage I and II melanoma patients who may benefit from additional anti-tumor interventions. The clinical application of testing through gene expression profiling (GEP) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) is gaining traction, with platforms such as DecisionDx, Merlin Assay (CP-GEP), MelaGenix GEP, and Immunoprint coming into play. Currently, extensive validation studies are in progress to incorporate routine molecular testing into clinical practice. However, due to significant methodological limitations, widespread clinical adoption of tissue-based molecular testing remains elusive at present.

SUMMARY

While various tissue-based molecular testing platforms have the potential to stratify the risk of sentinel lymph node positivity (SLNP), most suffer from significant methodological deficiencies, including limited sample size, lack of prospective validation, and limited correlation with established clinicopathological variables. Furthermore, the genes and proteins identified by individual gene expression profiling (GEP) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests exhibit minimal overlap, even when considering the most well-established melanoma mutations. However, there is hope that the ongoing prospective trial for the Merlin Assay may safely reduce the necessity for SLNB procedures if successful. Additionally, the MelaGenix GEP and Immunoprint tests could prove valuable in identifying high-risk stage I-II melanoma patients and potentially guiding their selection for adjuvant therapy, thus potentially reducing the need for SLNB. Due to the diverse study designs employed, effective comparisons between GEP or IHC tests are challenging, and to date, there is no study directly comparing the clinical utility of these respective GEP or IHC tests.

Validation of epidermal AMBRA1 and loricrin (AMBLor) as a prognostic biomarker for nonulcerated American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I/II cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Combined expression of the autophagy-regulatory protein AMBRA1 (activating molecule in Beclin1-regulated autophagy) and the terminal differentiation marker loricrin in the peritumoral epidermis of stage I melanomas can identify tumour subsets at low risk of -metastasis.

OBJECTIVES

To validate the combined expression of peritumoral AMBRA1 and loricrin (AMBLor) as a prognostic biomarker able to identify both stage I and II melanomas at low risk of tumour recurrence.

METHODS

Automated immunohistochemistry was used to analyse peritumoral AMBRA1 and loricrin expression in geographically distinct discovery (n = 540) and validation (n = 300) cohorts of nonulcerated American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I and II melanomas. AMBLor status was correlated with clinical outcomes in the discovery and validation cohorts separately and combined.

RESULTS

Analysis of AMBLor in the discovery cohort revealed a recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate of 95.5% in the AMBLor low-risk group vs. 81.7% in the AMBLor at-risk group (multivariate log-rank, P < 0.001) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.0%. In the validation cohort, AMBLor analysis revealed a RFS rate of 97.6% in the AMBLor low-risk group vs. 78.3% in the at-risk group (multivariate log-rank, P < 0.001) and a NPV of 97.6%. In a multivariate model considering AMBLor, Breslow thickness, age and sex, analysis of the combined discovery and validation cohorts showed that the estimated effect of AMBLor was statistically significant, with a hazard ratio of 3.469 (95% confidence interval 1.403-8.580, P = 0.007) and an overall NPV of 96.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide further evidence validating AMBLor as a prognostic biomarker to identify nonulcerated AJCC stage I and II melanoma tumours at low risk of disease recurrence.

Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in melanoma

Biomarkers help to inform the clinical management of patients with melanoma. For patients with clinically localised primary melanoma, biomarkers can help to predict post-surgical outcome (including via the use of risk prediction tools), better select patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and tailor catch-all follow-up protocols to the individual. Systemic drug treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies and BRAF-targeted therapies, have radically improved the prognosis of metastatic (stage III and IV) cutaneous melanoma patients, and also shown benefit in the earlier setting of stage IIB/C primary melanoma. Unfortunately, a response is far from guaranteed. Here, we review clinically relevant, established, and emerging, prognostic, and predictive pathological biomarkers that refine clinical decision-making in primary and metastatic melanoma patients. Gene expression profile assays and nomograms are emerging tools for prognostication and sentinel lymph node risk prediction in primary melanoma patients. Biomarkers incorporated into clinical practice guidelines include BRAF V600 mutations for the use of targeted therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma, and the HLA-A∗02:01 allele for the use of a bispecific fusion protein in metastatic uveal melanoma. Several predictive biomarkers have been proposed for ICI therapies but have not been incorporated into Australian clinical practice guidelines. Further research, validation, and assessment of clinical utility is required before more prognostic and predictive biomarkers are fluidly integrated into routine care.

The Use of Gene Expression Profiling and Biomarkers in Melanoma Diagnosis and Predicting Recurrence: Implications for Surveillance and Treatment

Cutaneous melanoma is becoming more prevalent in the United States and has the highest mortality among cutaneous malignancies. The majority of melanomas are diagnosed at an early stage and, as such, survival is generally favorable. However, there remains prognostic uncertainty among subsets of early- and intermediate-stage melanoma patients, some of whom go on to develop advanced disease while others remain disease-free. Melanoma gene expression profiling (GEP) has evolved with the notion to help bridge this gap and identify higher- or lower-risk patients to better tailor treatment and surveillance protocols. These tests seek to prognosticate melanomas independently of established AJCC 8 cancer staging and clinicopathologic features (sex, age, primary tumor location, thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, microsatellites, and/or SLNB status). While there is a significant opportunity to improve the accuracy of melanoma prognostication and diagnosis, it is equally important to understand the current landscape of molecular profiling for melanoma treatment. Society guidelines currently do not recommend molecular testing outside of clinical trials for melanoma clinical decision making, citing insufficient high-quality evidence guiding indications for the testing and interpretation of results. The goal of this chapter is to review the available literature for GEP testing for melanoma diagnosis and prognostication and understand their place in current treatment paradigms.

Histopathologic abundance of pigmentation correlates with disease-specific survival in malignant melanoma but is not independent of current AJCC pT stage

The increasing number of melanoma patients makes it necessary to develop best possible strategies for prognosis assessment in order to recommend appropriate therapy and follow-up. The prognostic significance of tumor cell pigmentation has not been fully elucidated. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained sections of 775 melanomas diagnosed between 2012 and 2015 were independently assessed for melanin pigment abundance by two investigators, and the impact on melanoma-specific survival was calculated. Unpigmented melanomas (n = 99) had a melanoma-specific survival of 67.7%, melanomas with moderate pigmentation (n = 384) had a melanoma-specific survival of 85.9%, and strongly pigmented melanomas (n = 292) had a melanoma-specific survival of 91.4% (p < .001). In an analysis of melanoma-specific survival adjusted for pT stage and pigmentation, we found a nonsignificant impact of pigmentation abundance with a hazard ratio of 1.277 (p = .74). The study presented here provides evidence in a German cohort that patients with pigmented melanomas have a more favorable prognosis than those diagnosed with nonpigmented melanomas. Moreover, the abundance of pigmentation already seems to provide a first prognostic estimate. However, it does not appear to provide significant additional value for prognostic assessment according to the AJCC 2017 pT classification.

Adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma: the need for further studies

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionised the outcomes for melanoma patients. In the metastatic setting, patients treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab have an expected 5-year survival of> 50%. For patients with resected high-risk stage III disease, adjuvant pembrolizumab, nivolumab or dabrafenib and trametinib are associated with a significant improvement in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). More recently neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown very promising outcomes in patients with clinically detectable nodal disease and is likely to become a new standard of care. For stage IIB/C disease, two pivotal adjuvant trials of pembrolizumab and nivolumab have also reported a significant improvement in both RFS and DMFS. However, the absolute benefit is low and there are concerns about the risk of severe toxicities as well as long-term morbidity from endocrine toxicity. Ongoing registration phase III trials are currently evaluating newer immunotherapy combinations and the role of BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy for stage II melanoma. However, our ability to personalise therapy based on molecular risk stratification has lagged behind the development of novel immune therapies. There is a critical need to evaluate the use of tissue and blood-based biomarkers, to better select patients that will recur and avoid unnecessary treatment for the majority of patients cured by surgery alone.

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 1st-3rd, 2022-Naples, Italy)

Outcomes for patients with melanoma have improved over the past decade with the clinical development and approval of immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoint receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Combinations of these checkpoint therapies with other agents are now being explored to improve outcomes and enhance benefit-risk profiles of treatment. Alternative inhibitory receptors have been identified that may be targeted for anti-tumor immune therapy, such as lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), as have several potential target oncogenes for molecularly targeted therapy, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Unfortunately, many patients still progress and acquire resistance to immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies. To bypass resistance, combination treatment with immunotherapies and single or multiple TKIs have been shown to improve prognosis compared to monotherapy. The number of new combinations treatment under development for melanoma provides options for the number of patients to achieve a therapeutic benefit. Many diagnostic and prognostic assays have begun to show clinical applicability providing additional tools to optimize and individualize treatments. However, the question on the optimal algorithm of first- and later-line therapies and the search for biomarkers to guide these decisions are still under investigation. This year, the Melanoma Bridge Congress (Dec 1st-3rd, 2022, Naples, Italy) addressed the latest advances in melanoma research, focusing on themes of paramount importance for melanoma prevention, diagnosis and treatment. This included sessions dedicated to systems biology on immunotherapy, immunogenicity and gene expression profiling, biomarkers, and combination treatment strategies.

The Use of Single-Cell RNA-Sequencing and Spatial Transcriptomics in Understanding the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Skin Diseases

The development of multiomic profiling tools has rapidly expanded in recent years, along with their use in profiling skin tissues in various contexts, including dermatologic diseases. Among these tools, single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics (ST) have emerged as widely adopted and powerful assays for elucidating key cellular components and their spatial arrangement within skin disease. In this paper, we review the recent biological insights gained from the use of scRNA-seq and ST and the advantages of combining both for profiling skin diseases, including aberrant wound healing, inflammatory skin diseases, and cancer. We discuss the role of scRNA-seq and ST in improving skin disease treatments and moving toward the goal of achieving precision medicine in dermatology, whereby patients can be optimally matched to treatments that maximize therapeutic response.

Alternatives and reduced need for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) staging for melanoma

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced in the 1990s to identify patients who might benefit from completion lymph node dissection. Neither SLNB nor CLND improved survival, but SLNB staging did provide the best staging, above Breslow thickness and ulceration. The SLN status and SLN tumour burden were used in all trials until date looking at modern adjuvant systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) or targeted therapies (TT). Adjuvant ICI and TT are shifting towards stage II melanoma. The question is whether there is still role for SLNB in melanoma, in this day and age, and if so, how does the future look for SLNB staging? The SLN status and SLN tumour burden might be useful for a consultation to discuss the number needed to treat in a risk/benefit discussion. For stage IIB/C patients, it seems likely, however, that patients will forego a nuclear scan followed by the risk of surgical intervention and morbidity associated with SLNB if they opt to receive adjuvant therapy regardless of the SLNB result. For stage I/IIA, it is still required to detect high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, biomarkers are emerging, such as gene expression profilers (GEP), immunohistological signatures and liquid biopsies with ctDNA. There still is a role for SLNB staging in melanoma today, but we expect that the availability of therapeutic option independent of SLNB status as well as emergence of validated biomarkers to predict risk will reduce the need for SLNB staging in the upcoming decade to the point it will no longer be used.

Identification of stage I/II melanoma patients at high risk for recurrence using a model combining clinicopathologic factors with gene expression profiling (CP-GEP)

PURPOSE

Patients with cutaneous melanoma stage I/IIA disease are currently not eligible for adjuvant therapy, despite their risk for relapses and death. This study validates the ability of a model combining clinicopathologic factors with gene expression profiling (CP-GEP) to identify patients at high risk for disease recurrence in stage I/II and subgroup stage I/IIA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

543 patients with stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma from the University of Tuebingen diagnosed between 2000 and 2017 were analysed. All patients received sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Analysis was conducted for a separate group of 80 patients who did not undergo SLNB.

RESULTS

CP-GEP stratified 424 stage I/IIA patients (78% of the cohort) according to their risk for recurrence, with five-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates of 77.8% and 93% for CP-GEP high risk (195 patients) and low risk (229 patients), respectively, and hazard ratio of 3.53 (p-value <0.001). In patients who did not receive SLNB biopsy, CP-GEP captured 6 out of 7 relapses.

CONCLUSION

CP-GEP can be used to identify primary cutaneous melanoma patients with a high risk for disease recurrence - especially for stage I/IIA, who are considered low risk by AJCC 8th. These patients may benefit from adjuvant therapy. Also, in the future, when SLNB may become irrelevant, CP-GEP may serve as a risk stratification tool.

Molecular Skin Cancer Diagnosis: Promise and Limitations

Skin cancer is a significant and increasing global health burden. Although the current diagnostic workflow is robust and able to provide clinically actionable results, it is subject to notable limitations. The training and expertise required for accurate diagnoses using conventional skin cancer diagnostics are significant, and patient access to this workflow can be limited by geographic location or unforeseen events, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Molecular biomarkers have transformed diagnostics and treatment delivery in oncology. With rapid advancements in molecular biology techniques, understanding of the underlying molecular mechanism of cancer pathologies has deepened, yielding biomarkers that can be used to monitor the course of malignant diseases. Herein, commercially available, clinically validated, and emerging skin cancer molecular biomarkers are reviewed. The qualities of an ideal molecular biomarker are defined. The potential benefits and limitations of applying molecular biomarker testing over the course of skin cancer from susceptibility to treatment are explored, with a view to outlining a future model of molecular biomarker skin cancer diagnostics.

Protein expression of prognostic genes in primary melanoma and benign nevi

PURPOSE

To evaluate the protein expression characteristics of genes employed in a recently introduced prognostic gene expression assay for patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM).

METHODS

We studied 37 patients with CM and 10 with benign (melanocytic) nevi (BN). Immunohistochemistry of primary tumor tissue was performed for eight proteins: COL6A6, DCD, GBP4, KLHL41, KRT9, PIP, SCGB1D2, SCGB2A2.

RESULTS

The protein expression of most markers investigated was relatively low (e.g., DCD, KRT9, SCGB1D2) and predominantly cytoplasmatic in melanocytes and keratinocytes. COL6A6, GBP4, and KLHL41 expression was significantly enhanced in CM when compared to BN. DCD protein expression was significantly correlated with COL6A6, GBP4, and KLHL41. GBP4 was positively correlated with KLHL41 and inversely correlated with SCGB2B2. The latter was also inversely correlated with serum S100B levels at time of initial diagnosis. The presence of SCGB1D2 expression was significantly associated with ulceration of the primary tumor. KRT9 protein expression was significantly more likely found in acral lentiginous melanoma. The presence of DCD expression was less likely associated with superficial spreading melanoma subtype but significantly associated with non-progressive disease. The absence of SCGB2A2 expression was significantly more often observed in patients who did not progress to stage III or IV.

CONCLUSIONS

The expression levels observed were relatively low but differed in part with those found in BN. Even though we detected some significant correlations between the protein expression levels and clinical parameters (e.g., CM subtype, course of disease), there was no major concordance with the protective or risk-associated functions of the corresponding genes included in a recently introduced prognostic gene expression assay.

Real-world Evidence Shows Clinicians Appropriately Use the Prognostic 40-gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test for High-risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients

Treatment decisions for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are traditionally based upon clinicopathologic risk factors and staging systems. Due to the accuracy limitations of these resources in predicting poor outcomes, there is a clinically significant need for more accurate methods of risk assessment. The 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test was developed to augment metastatic risk prediction of high-risk cSCC patients and has been validated in two independent, multi-center studies involving over 1,000 patients. This study substantiates that the 40-GEP is appropriately utilized by clinicians and that the personalized risk-stratification results are impactful in guiding risk-aligned patient management.

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 2nd - 4th, 2021, Italy)

Advances in immune checkpoint and combination therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor, tumor microenvironment and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. Combination modalities with other immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy are also being explored to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response. In addition, novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy, oncogenic viruses, vaccines and different strategies of drug administration including sequential, or combination treatment are being tested. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic theràapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. Overall, the future research efforts in melanoma therapeutics and translational research should focus on several aspects including: (a) developing robust biomarkers to predict efficacy of therapeutic modalities to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment regimens, (b) identifying mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors that are potentially actionable, (c) identifying biomarkers to predict therapy-induced adverse events, and (d) studying mechanism of actions of therapeutic agents and developing algorithms to optimize combination treatments. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 2nd-4th, 2021, Naples, Italy) discussions focused on the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine as well as the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management of melanoma patients.

Clinically Significant Risk Thresholds in the Management of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma: A Survey of Melanoma Experts

BACKGROUND

Risk-based thresholds to guide management are undefined in the treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma but are essential to advance the field from traditional stage-based treatment to more individualized care.

METHODS

To estimate treatment risk thresholds, hypothetical clinical melanoma scenarios were developed and a stratified random sample was distributed to expert melanoma clinicians via an anonymous web-based survey. Scenarios provided a defined 5-year risk of recurrence and asked for recommendations regarding clinical follow-up, imaging, and adjuvant therapy. Marginal probability of response across the spectrum of 5-year recurrence risk was estimated. The risk at which 50% of respondents recommended a treatment was defined as the risk threshold.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 56% (89/159). Three separate multivariable models were constructed to estimate the recommendations for clinical follow-up more than twice/year, for surveillance cross-sectional imaging at least once/year, and for adjuvant therapy. A 36% 5-year risk of recurrence was identified as the threshold for recommending clinical follow-up more than twice/year. The thresholds for recommending cross-sectional imaging and adjuvant therapy were 30 and 59%, respectively. Thresholds varied with the age of the hypothetical patient: at younger ages they were constant but increased rapidly at ages 60 years and above.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, these data provide the first estimates of clinically significant treatment thresholds for patients with cutaneous melanoma based on risk of recurrence. Future refinement and adoption of thresholds would permit assessment of the clinical utility of novel prognostic tools and represents an early step toward individualizing treatment recommendations.

Prognostic biomarkers of cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Melanomas account for only approximately 4% of diagnosed skin cancers in the United States but are responsible for the majority of deaths caused by skin cancer. Both genetic factors and ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure play a role in the development of melanoma. Although melanomas have a strong propensity to metastasize when diagnosed late, melanomas that are diagnosed and treated early pose a low mortality risk. In particular, the identification of patients with increased metastatic risk, who may benefit from early adjuvant therapies, is crucial, especially given the advent of new melanoma treatments. However, the accuracy of classic clinical and histological variables, including the Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, and lymph node status, might not be sufficient to identify such individuals. Thus, there is a need for the development of additional prognostic melanoma biomarkers that can improve early attempts to stratify melanoma patients and reliably identify high-risk subgroups with the aim of providing effective personalized therapies.

METHODS

In our current work, we discuss and assess emerging primary melanoma tumor biomarkers and prognostic circulating biomarkers.

RESULTS

Several promising biomarkers show prognostic value (eg, exosomal MIA (ie, melanoma inhibitory activity), serum S100B, AMLo signatures, and mRNA signatures); however, the scarcity of reliable data precludes the use of these biomarkers in current clinical applications.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed on several promising biomarkers for melanoma. Large-scale studies are warranted to facilitate the clinical translation of prognostic biomarker applications for melanoma in personalized medicine.

Cross-Platform Omics Prediction procedure: a statistical machine learning framework for wider implementation of precision medicine

In this modern era of precision medicine, molecular signatures identified from advanced omics technologies hold great promise to better guide clinical decisions. However, current approaches are often location-specific due to the inherent differences between platforms and across multiple centres, thus limiting the transferability of molecular signatures. We present Cross-Platform Omics Prediction (CPOP), a penalised regression model that can use omics data to predict patient outcomes in a platform-independent manner and across time and experiments. CPOP improves on the traditional prediction framework of using gene-based features by selecting ratio-based features with similar estimated effect sizes. These components gave CPOP the ability to have a stable performance across datasets of similar biology, minimising the effect of technical noise often generated by omics platforms. We present a comprehensive evaluation using melanoma transcriptomics data to demonstrate its potential to be used as a critical part of a clinical screening framework for precision medicine. Additional assessment of generalisation was demonstrated with ovarian cancer and inflammatory bowel disease studies.

Using a Clinicopathologic and Gene Expression (CP-GEP) Model to Identify Stage I-II Melanoma Patients at Risk of Disease Relapse

Background: The current standard of care for patients without sentinel node (SN) metastasis (i.e., stage I−II melanoma) is watchful waiting, while >40% of patients with stage IB−IIC will eventually present with disease recurrence or die as a result of melanoma. With the prospect of adjuvant therapeutic options for patients with a negative SN, we assessed the performance of a clinicopathologic and gene expression (CP-GEP) model, a model originally developed to predict SN metastasis, to identify patients with stage I−II melanoma at risk of disease relapse. Methods: This study included patients with cutaneous melanoma ≥18 years of age with a negative SN between October 2006 and December 2017 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital (Sweden) and Erasmus MC Cancer Institute (The Netherlands). According to the CP-GEP model, which can be applied to the primary melanoma tissue, the patients were stratified into high or low risk of recurrence. The primary aim was to assess the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of low- and high-risk CP-GEP. A secondary aim was to compare the CP-GEP model with the EORTC nomogram, a model based on clinicopathological variables only. Results: In total, 535 patients (stage I−II) were included. CP-GEP stratification among these patients resulted in a 5-year RFS of 92.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 86.4−96.4) in CP-GEP low-risk patients (n = 122) versus 80.7% (95%CI: 76.3−84.3) in CP-GEP high-risk patients (n = 413; hazard ratio 2.93 (95%CI: 1.41−6.09), p < 0.004). According to the EORTC nomogram, 25% of the patients were classified as having a ‘low risk’ of recurrence (96.8% 5-year RFS (95%CI 91.6−98.8), n = 130), 49% as ‘intermediate risk’ (88.4% 5-year RFS (95%CI 83.6−91.8), n = 261), and 26% as ‘high risk’ (61.1% 5-year RFS (95%CI 51.9−69.1), n = 137). Conclusion: In these two independent European cohorts, the CP-GEP model was able to stratify patients with stage I−II melanoma into two groups differentiated by RFS.

Development of an Image Analysis-Based Prognosis Score Using Google's Teachable Machine in Melanoma

BACKGROUND

The increasing number of melanoma patients makes it necessary to establish new strategies for prognosis assessment to ensure follow-up care. Deep-learning-based image analysis of primary melanoma could be a future component of risk stratification.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a risk score for overall survival based on image analysis through artificial intelligence (AI) and validate it in a test cohort.

METHODS

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections of 831 melanomas, diagnosed from 2012-2015 were photographed and used to perform deep-learning-based group classification. For this purpose, the freely available software of Google's teachable machine was used. Five hundred patient sections were used as the training cohort, and 331 sections served as the test cohort.

RESULTS

Using Google's Teachable Machine, a prognosis score for overall survival could be developed that achieved a statistically significant prognosis estimate with an AUC of 0.694 in a ROC analysis based solely on image sections of approximately 250 × 250 µm. The prognosis group "low-risk" (n = 230) showed an overall survival rate of 93%, whereas the prognosis group "high-risk" (n = 101) showed an overall survival rate of 77.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the possibility of using deep learning-based classification systems for risk stratification in melanoma. The AI assessment used in this study provides a significant risk estimate in melanoma, but it does not considerably improve the existing risk classification based on the TNM classification.

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.

Breslow thickness 2.0: Why gene expression profiling is a step toward better patient selection for sentinel lymph node biopsies

Risk-stratification of cutaneous melanoma is important. Patients want to know what to expect after diagnosis, and physicians need to decide on a treatment plan. Historically, melanoma that had spread beyond the skin and regional lymph nodes was largely incurable, and the only approach to preventing a bad outcome was surgery. Through the seminal work of Alexander Breslow and Donald Morton, a system was devised to carefully escalate surgery based on primary tumor thickness and sentinel lymph node status. Today, we know that prophylactic lymph node dissections do not improve survival, but we continue to appreciate the prognostic implications of a positive sentinel node and the benefits of removing nodal metastases, which facilitates locoregional disease control. However, the question arises whether we can better select patients for sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) as, currently, 85% of these procedures are negative and non-therapeutic. Here, we argue that gene expression profiling (GEP) of the diagnostic biopsy is a valuable step toward better patient selection when combined with reliable clinicopathologic (CP) information such as patient age and Breslow thickness. Recently, a CP-GEP-based classifier of nodal metastasis risk, the Merlin Assay, has become commercially available. While CP-GEP is still being validated in prospective studies, preliminary data suggest that it is an independent predictor of nodal metastasis, outperforming clinicopathological variables. The hunt is on for Breslow thickness 2.0.

Gene expression profiling in melanoma: A view from the clinic

The treatment of Melanoma, one of the most aggressive human malignancies, has been revolutionised by the advent of novel targeted and immuno-therapies. However, methods utilised to detect early presentations, and to stratify risk for patients diagnosed with invasive melanoma in the clinical setting are lagging. The primary prognostic indicator is restricted to Breslow Thickness, or depth the tumour invades into the dermis. Gene Expression Profiling (GEP), the analysis of molecular gene signatures of an individual tumour, has been implemented with great success in other malignancies, such as breast and prostate cancer. In the setting of melanoma, commercial GEP panels are becoming available, offering patients a personalised approach, though yet to enter widespread clinical use. This short perspective seeks to describe how GEP is currently employed in practice, and its current clinical impact. We also suggest the potential roles for GEP in meeting the key clinical challenges faced by clinicians in melanoma treatment, such as decisions around adjuvant therapy, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and surgical resection , thus highlighting areas for future potential research.

Identifying High-Risk Tumors within AJCC Stage IB-III Melanomas Using a Seven-Marker Immunohistochemical Signature

Simple Summary

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are widely accepted for stage III and IV melanoma patients. Clinical investigation of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma has already started. Therefore, methods for relapse prediction in lower stage melanoma patients apart from sentinel node biopsies are much needed to guide (neo)adjuvant therapies. Gene scores such as the “DecisionDx-Melanoma” and the “MelaGenix” score can help assist therapy decisions. However, a seven-marker immunohistochemical signature could add valuable feasibility to the biomarker toolbox.

Abstract

Background: We aim to validate a seven-marker immunohistochemical signature, consisting of Bax, Bcl-X, PTEN, COX-2, (loss of) ß-Catenin, (loss of) MTAP and (presence of) CD20, in an independent patient cohort and test clinical feasibility. Methods: We performed staining of the mentioned antibodies in tissue of 88 primary melanomas and calculated a risk score for each patient. Data were correlated with clinical parameters and outcome (recurrence-free, distant metastasis-free and melanoma-specific survival). Results: The seven-marker signature was able to identify high-risk patients within stages IB-III melanoma patients that have a significantly higher risk of disease recurrence, metastasis, and death. In particular, the high sensitivity of relapse prediction (>94%) in sentinel negative patients (stages IB–IIC) was striking (negative predictive value of 100% for melanoma-specific survival and distant metastasis-free survival, and 97.5% for relapse-free survival). For stage III patients (positive nodal status), the negative predictive value was 100% with the seven-marker signature. Conclusions: The seven-marker signature can help to further select high-risk patients in stages IIB-C but also in earlier stages IB–IIA and be a useful tool for therapy decisions in the adjuvant and future neo-adjuvant settings. Stage III patients with measurable lymph node disease classified as high-risk with the seven-marker signature are potential candidates for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Genetic markers for characterization and prediction of prognosis of melanoma subtypes: a 2021 update

In this article we examined the most important genetic markers involved in melanoma susceptibility, initiation and progression, and their impact on the prognosis of the disease. Current knowledge in melanoma genetics identifies distinct pathways to the development of different melanoma subtypes characterized by specific clinico-pathological features and partially known genetic markers, modulated by high, low or absence of cumulative sun damage. The most prevalent somatic mutations are related to the activation of the MAPK pathway, which are classified into four major subtypes: BRAF mutant, NRAS mutant, NF1 mutant and triple wild type. Moreover, germinal mutations are also involved in the characterization and predictions of prognosis in melanoma. Currently, CDKN2A is seen as the main high-risk gene involved in melanoma susceptibility being mutated in around 20% of melanoma-prone families. Other high-risk susceptibility genes described include CDK4, POT1, BAP1, TERT promoter, ACD, and TERF2IP. Melanoma is one of the most genetically predisposed among all cancers in humans, and ultraviolet light from the sun is the main environmental factor. This genetic predisposition is starting to be understood, impacting not only on the risk of developing melanoma but also on the risk of developing other types of cancer, as well as on the prognosis of the disease.

Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects

Despite significant progress in the development of treatment options, melanoma remains a leading cause of death due to skin cancer. Advances in our understanding of the genetic, transcriptomic, and morphologic spectrum of benign and malignant melanocytic neoplasia have enabled the field to propose biomarkers with potential diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive value. While these proposed biomarkers have the potential to improve clinical decision making at multiple critical intervention points, most remain unvalidated. Clinical validation of even the most commonly assessed biomarkers will require substantial resources, including limited clinical specimens. It is therefore important to consider the properties that constitute a relevant and clinically-useful biomarker-based test prior to engaging in large validation studies. In this review article we adapt an established framework for determining minimally-useful biomarker test characteristics, and apply this framework to a discussion of currently used and proposed biomarkers designed to aid melanoma detection, staging, prognosis, and choice of treatment.

Differences in cutaneous melanoma survival between the 7th and 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). A multicentric population-based study

BACKGROUND

The 8th edition of the AJCC manual for melanoma includes many changes leading to major substage migrations, which could lead to important clinical reassessments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences and prognostic value of the 8th AJCC classification in comparison with the 7th edition.

METHODS

Clinical and histopathological data were retrieved from five melanoma referral centers including 7815 melanoma patients diagnosed between January 1998 and December 2018. All patients were reclassified and compared using the 7th and 8th classifications of the AJCC. Sankey plots were used to evaluate the migration of patients between the different versions. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and curves based on the Kaplan-Meier method were used to investigate survival differences between the 7th and 8th editions.

RESULTS

The number of patients classified as stages IB, IIIA, and IIIB decreased while the patients classified as stages IA and IIIC increased notably. Migration analysis showed that many patients in group I were understaged whereas a significant percentage of patients in group III were upstaged. Indirect OS analysis showed a loss in the linearity in the AJCC 8th edition and the groups tended to overlap. Direct OS analysis between groups and versions of the AJCC showed a better prognosis within the new stage III patients, with no effect on those in stages I and II.

CONCLUSION

The 8th AJCC edition represents an important change in the classification of patients. We observe that the main migratory changes occur in stage I and III, that severity linearity is lost and groups overlap, and that a more advanced stage does not mean a worse prognosis.

Identification of stage I/IIA melanoma patients at high risk for disease relapse using a clinicopathologic and gene expression model

PURPOSE

Patients with stage I/IIA cutaneous melanoma (CM) are currently not eligible for adjuvant therapies despite uncertainty in relapse risk. Here, we studied the ability of a recently developed model which combines clinicopathologic and gene expression variables (CP-GEP) to identify stage I/IIA melanoma patients who have a high risk for disease relapse.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Archival specimens from a cohort of 837 consecutive primary CMs were used for assessing the prognostic performance of CP-GEP. The CP-GEP model combines Breslow thickness and patient age, with the expression of eight genes in the primary tumour. Our specific patient group, represented by 580 stage I/IIA patients, was stratified based on their risk of relapse: CP-GEP High Risk and CP-GEP Low Risk. The main clinical end-point of this study was five-year relapse-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Within the stage I/IIA melanoma group, CP-GEP identified a high-risk patient group (47% of total stage I/IIA patients) which had a considerably worse five-year RFS than the low-risk patient group; 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67%-80%) versus 89% (95% CI: 84%-93%); hazard ratio [HR] = 2.98 (95% CI: 1.78-4.98); P < 0.0001. Of patients in the high-risk group, those who relapsed were most likely to do so within the first 3 years.

CONCLUSION

The CP-GEP model can be used to identify stage I/IIA patients who have a high risk for disease relapse. These patients may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Cellular and Molecular Aspects of Anti-Melanoma Effect of Minocycline-A Study of Cytotoxicity and Apoptosis on Human Melanotic Melanoma Cells

Minocycline is a tetracycline compound with pleiotropic pharmacological properties. In addition to its antibacterial action, it shows many non-antimicrobial effects, including an anti-cancer activity. The anti-cancer action was confirmed in studies on ovarian carcinoma cells, hepatocellular carcinoma cells, glioma cells, or acute myeloid leukemia cells. Malignant melanoma remains a serious medical problem despite the extensive knowledge of the disease. The low effectiveness of the standard treatment, as well as the resistance to therapy, result in high mortality rates. This work aimed to investigate the potential and mechanisms of anti-melanoma action of minocycline. Human skin melanotic melanoma cell line COLO 829 was used in the study. The obtained results showed that minocycline decreased cell viability and inhibited the growth of melanoma cells, proportional to the drug concentration as well as to the time of incubation. The EC50 values were calculated to be 78.6 µM, 31.7 µM, and 13.9 µM for 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h, respectively. It was observed that treated cells had a disturbed cell cycle and significantly changed morphology. Moreover, minocycline caused a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential and an increase in cells with a low level of reduced thiols. Finally, it was found that the anti-melanoma effect of minocycline was related to the induction of apoptosis. The drug activated caspases 8, 9, and 3/7 as well as increased the number of annexin V-positive cells. The presented results show that minocycline possesses anti-melanoma potential.

Performance of Gene Expression Profile Tests for Prognosis in Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The performance of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma is poorly characterized.

Objective

To systematically assess the performance of commercially available GEP tests in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I or stage II disease.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprehensive searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted on December 12, 2019, for English-language studies of humans without date restrictions.

Study Selection

Two reviewers identified GEP external validation studies of patients with localized melanoma. After exclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (8%; 5 assessing DecisionDx-Melanoma and 2 assessing MelaGenix) were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted using an adaptation of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS-PF). When feasible, meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed with the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and an adaptation of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients with or without melanoma recurrence correctly classified by the GEP test as being at high or low risk.

Results

In the 7 included studies, a total of 1450 study participants contributed data (age and sex unknown). The performance of both GEP tests varied by AJCC stage. Of patients tested with DecisionDx-Melanoma, 623 had stage I disease (6 true-positive [TP], 15 false-negative, 61 false-positive, and 541 true-negative [TN] results) and 212 had stage II disease (59 TP, 13 FN, 78 FP, and 62 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, DecisionDx-Melanoma correctly classified 29% with stage I disease and 82% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 90% with stage I disease and 44% with stage II disease. Of patients tested with MelaGenix, 88 had stage I disease (7 TP, 15 FN, 15 FP, and 51 TN results) and 245 had stage II disease (59 TP, 19 FN, 95 FP, and 72 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, MelaGenix correctly classified 32% with stage I disease and 76% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 77% with stage I disease and 43% with stage II disease.

Conclusions and Relevance

The prognostic ability of GEP tests among patients with localized melanoma varied by AJCC stage and appeared to be poor at correctly identifying recurrence in patients with stage I disease, suggesting limited potential for clinical utility in these patients.

Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Cutaneous Melanoma: Identifying the Knowledge Gaps and Assessing the Clinical Benefit

Importance

Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.

Objective

To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.

Evidence Review

The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.

Findings

The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.

Conclusions and Relevance

More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Past, Current, and Future Developments

This review describes the progress that the concept of adjuvant therapies has undergone in the last 50 years and focuses on the most recent development where an adjuvant approach has been scientifically evaluated in melanoma clinical trials. Over the past decade the development of immunotherapies and targeted therapies has drastically changed the treatment of stage IV melanoma patients. These successes led to trials studying the same therapies in the adjuvant setting, in high risk resected stage III and IV melanoma patients. Adjuvant immune checkpoint blockade with anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab was the first drug to show an improvement in recurrence-free and overall survival but this was accompanied by high severe toxicity rates. Therefore, these results were bypassed by adjuvant treatment with anti-PD-1 agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab and BRAF-directed target therapy, which showed even better recurrence-free survival rates with more favorable toxicity rates. The whole concept of adjuvant therapy may be integrated with the new neoadjuvant approaches that are under investigation through several clinical trials. However, there is still no data available on whether the effective adjuvant therapy that patients finally have at their disposal could be offered to them while waiting for recurrence, sparing at least 50% of them a potentially long-term toxic side effect but with the same rate of overall survival (OS). Adjuvant therapy for melanoma has radically changed over the past few years—anti-PD-1 or BRAF-directed therapy is the new standard of care.

Prognostic gene expression profiling in melanoma: necessary steps to incorporate into clinical practice

Prognostic gene expression profiling (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma (CM) are not recommended in current guidelines outside of a clinical trial. However, their use is becoming more prevalent and some practitioners are using GEP tests to guide patient management. Thus, there is an urgent need to bridge this gap between test usage and clinical guideline recommendations by obtaining high-quality evidence to guide us toward best practice use of GEP testing in CM patients. We focus here on the opportunities and uncertainties associated with prognostic GEP testing in CM, review how GEP testing was incorporated into clinical care guidelines for uveal melanoma and breast cancer and discuss the role of clinical trials to determine best use in patients with CM.