The EORTC-DeCOG nomogram adequately predicts outcomes of patients with sentinel node-positive melanoma without the need for completion lymph node dissection

Clinical, dermatoscopic, histological and molecular predictive factors of distant melanoma metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Melanoma metastasis to distant sites is associated with diminished survival rates and poor prognosis. Except of Breslow thickness and ulceration that are currently used in melanoma staging, the investigation of additional clinicopathological, dermatoscopic and molecular factors that could predict tumors with aggressive biologic behavior is of paramount importance.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases and gray literature until November 2023. Observational studies (including cohorts and case-control studies) were included and clinical and histopathological factors of primary cutaneous melanomas, along with dermatoscopic and molecular predictors of distant metastasis (DM) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed. Random - effect models were preferred, the results were presented as Hazard Ratios (HRs) with 95 %Confidence Intervals (CIs) and the I2 index quantified heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis according to AJCC stage and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-three and 101 studies were included in the qualitive and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Regarding clinical factors, males, compared to females, and head and neck location, compared to trunk, demonstrated higher risk for DM [n=36, HR 1.49, 95%CI 1.36 - 1.63, I2 33% and n=21, HR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.01 - 1.52, I2 62 %]. Both factors had similar effects on DMFS. Breslow thickness and ulceration were significant predictors or DM. Additional factors that posed an increased risk for DM were nodular (n=15, HR 2.51, 95 %CI 1.83 - 3.43, I2 56 %) and lentigo maligna subtypes (n=12, HR 1.87, 95 %CI 1.27 - 2.75, I2 0 %), compared to superficial spreading subtype, lymphovascular invasion (n=9, HR 2.05, 95 %CI 1.18 - 3.58, I2 78 %), SLN positivity and BRAF+ mutational status. In contrast, regression was a negative predictor of DM (n=15, HR 0.59, 95 %CI 0.44 - 0.79, I2 68 %). Two studies focused on dermatoscopic factors and found that low pigmentation and the presence of blue-white veil might predict DM development. The results of subgroup analysis for stage I-II patients were essentially similar and sensitivity analysis did not reveal significant alterations, despite the moderate or high heterogeneity in some categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and histological characteristics of the tumor along with dermatoscopic features and molecular parameters hold significant prognostic information and could be incorporated into models to predict melanomas with high metastatic potential.

Evidence for Radiation Therapy in Stage III Locoregionally Advanced Cutaneous Melanoma in the Post-Immunotherapy Era: A Literature Review

In the landscape of Stage III locoregionally advanced cutaneous melanoma treatment, the post-immunotherapy era has sparked a number of questions on the management of the nodal basin. However, much of the available literature is not focused on radiation therapy as an adjuvant therapy. This literature review aims to illuminate the evidence surrounding radiation therapy's potential to mitigate regional recurrences in the adjuvant setting for melanoma. Additionally, it seeks to identify adjunct systemic therapy options and explore the synergy between systemic therapy and radiation. Despite strides in surgical techniques and systemic therapies, controlling regional Stage III melanoma remains a formidable clinical hurdle. While historical data strongly suggest the efficacy of adjuvant radiation therapy in reducing regional recurrence risk, its evaluation predates the advent of MAPK pathway inhibitors and robust immunotherapy options. Notably, clinical trials have yet to definitively demonstrate a survival advantage with adjuvant radiation therapy. Additional research should focus on refining the definition of high risk for regional recurrence through gene expression profiling or tumor immune profiling scores and elucidate the optimal role of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

Transcutaneous sentinel lymph node detection in skin melanoma with near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green

The aim of the study is to assess whether indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence can replace technetium in the preoperative detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) from cutaneous melanoma. The current golden standard for SLN detection is the radioisotope technetium. A promising alternative is fluorescence imaging (FLI) using ICG. In this study, we enrolled patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for skin melanoma at the Erasmus Medical Center between November 2022 and July 2023. The SLNB procedure was performed as a standard of care. After general anesthesia, ICG was injected intradermally around the primary tumor site. Both the patient and the surgeon were not blinded for the location of the SLN. FLI was performed before incision, in vivo after incision, and ex vivo. Fluorescent SLNs were confirmed using the gamma probe in all cases. Thirty-two patients were included in this study, and a total of 39 SLNs were harvested. The transcutaneous detection rate of ICG was 21.9%. The combined ex vivo ICG fluorescence and technetium uptake was 94.9%. One SLN contained only ICG (2.6%) and one SLN contained only technetium-uptake (2.6%). FLI using ICG resulted in a relatively low transcutaneous detection, which means that exclusive use of this technique in its present form is not feasible. However, we did find a high accumulation of ICG in the SLN, indicating the potential of ICG in combination with other imaging techniques.

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.

Development and validation of a novel model to predict recurrence-free survival and melanoma-specific survival after sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma: an international, retrospective, multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage.

METHODS

Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia).

FINDINGS

The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas.

FUNDING

Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute.

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.

Sentinel lymph node assessment in melanoma: current state and future directions

Assessment of sentinel lymph node status is an important step in the evaluation of patients with melanoma for both prognosis and therapeutic management. Pathologists have an important role in this evaluation. The methodologies have varied over time, from the evaluation of dimensions of metastatic burden to determination of the location of the tumour deposits within the lymph node to precise cell counting. However, no single method of sentinel lymph node tumour burden measurement can currently be used as a sole independent predictor of prognosis. The management approach to sentinel lymph node-positive patients has also evolved over time, with a more conservative approach recently recognised for selected cases. This review gives an overview of past and current status in the field with a glimpse into future directions based on prior experiences and clinical trials.

External validation in an Australian population of the EORTC-DeCOG nomogram predicting recurrence, distant metastasis and overall mortality in melanoma patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes

BACKGROUND

Calculating an accurate prognosis for melanoma patients who have a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy is important both for them and for their treating doctors to guide decision-making, particularly when adjuvant systemic therapy is being considered. The recently published EORTC-DeCOG nomograms aim to provide this via an online portal that predicts 5-year rates for recurrence, distant metastasis and overall mortality. The present study provides external validation of these nomograms.

METHODS/MATERIALS

De-identified data from patients with a positive SN biopsy between 2003 and 2015 were extracted from the prospectively maintained Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) research database. ROC-curves with C-statistics, regression co-efficients and Decision Curve Net Benefit analyses were performed using the integrated private validation portal on the nomograms' hosting platform (Evidencio).

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 352 patients. The respective C-statistics for recurrence, distant metastasis and overall mortality nomogram validations were 0.68, 0.69 and 0.66.

CONCLUSION

The performance of the nomograms in predicting recurrence and distant metastasis was similar in the MIA and the development populations, suggesting that they are robust. However, the overall mortality nomogram performance was significantly poorer in the MIA population (C-statistic 0.66) than in the original EORTC-DeCOG derivation cohort (C-statistic 0.70) and may therefore be less reliable for clinical use.

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.

The role of sentinel node tumor burden in modeling the prognosis of melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy: an Italian melanoma intergroup study (N = 2,086)

Background

The management of melanoma patients with metastatic melanoma in the sentinel nodes (SN) is evolving based on the results of trials questioning the impact of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and demonstrating the efficacy of new adjuvant treatments. In this landscape, new prognostic tools for fine risk stratification are eagerly sought to optimize the therapeutic path of these patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of 2,086 patients treated with CLND after a positive SN biopsy in thirteen Italian Melanoma Centers was reviewed. Overall survival (OS) was the outcome of interest; included independent variables were the following: age, gender, primary melanoma site, Breslow thickness, ulceration, sentinel node tumor burden (SNTB), number of positive SN, non-sentinel lymph nodes (NSN) status. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.

Results

The 3-year, 5-year and 10-year OS rates were 79%, 70% and 54%, respectively. At univariate analysis, all variables, except for primary melanoma body site, were found to be statistically significant prognostic factors. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that older age (P < 0.0001), male gender (P = 0.04), increasing Breslow thickness (P < 0.0001), presence of ulceration (P = 0.004), SNTB size (P < 0.0001) and metastatic NSN (P < 0.0001) were independent negative predictors of OS.

Conclusion

The above results were utilized to build a nomogram in order to ease the practical implementation of our prognostic model, which might improve treatment personalization.

Mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) immunoreactivity in positive sentinel nodes from patients with melanoma

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cutaneous melanoma and a positive sentinel node (SN) are currently eligible for adjuvant treatment with targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging could be an alternative and less invasive tool for SN biopsy to select patients for adjuvant treatment. One potential target for NIR is the mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET). This study aimed to assess MET immunoreactivity in positive SNs and to evaluate its potential diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic value.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, positive SN samples from patients with primary cutaneous melanoma were collected to assess MET immunoreactivity. To this end, paraffin-embedded SNs were stained for MET (monoclonal antibody D1C2). A 4-point Histoscore was used to determine cytoplasmic and membranous immunoreactivity (0 negative/1 weak/2 moderate/3 strong). Samples were considered positive when ≥10% of the cancer cells showed MET expression (staining intensity ≥1). Patient and clinicopathological characteristics were used for descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and survival analyses.

RESULTS

Positive MET immunohistochemistry was observed in 24 out of 37 samples (65%). No statistically significant associations were found between MET positivity and the following prognostic factors: Breslow thickness (P = 0.961), ulceration (P = 1.000), and SN tumor burden (P = 0.792). According to MET positivity, Kaplan-Meier curves showed no significant differences in survival.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study found no evidence to support MET immunoreactivity in positive SNs as a possible diagnostic or prognostic indicator in patients with melanoma.

Melanoma: Staging and Follow-Up

Cancer staging is the process determining to which extent a cancer has spread and where it is located in the body. A thorough staging is of utmost importance, not only because it provides the most accurate prognostic estimation, but also because several crucial decisions, such as the treatment choice and the follow-up strategy, vary according to the tumor's stage. The current staging system for melanoma is based on the 8^th edition of TNM classification issued by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) in 2017. It includes a clinical and a pathological staging, both consisting of 5 stages (0-IV). The stage of a melanoma is determined by several factors, among which the Breslow thickness, the pathological presence or absence of ulceration in the primary tumor, the presence and the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, the presence or absence of in-transit, satellite and/or microsatellite metastases, and the presence of distant metastases. Following melanoma diagnosis, an accurate medical workup, in line with the stage and the physical examination, should be performed. A continuous patient monitoring is fundamental to detect a potential relapse or a second primary melanoma and should be lifelong. However, there is still no universally adopted follow-up strategy program and different follow-up schemes have been suggested. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate different follow-up protocols according to the adopted therapy, as novel recent therapies (targeted and immunotherapies) are being increasingly used. Key MessagesProper staging is of utmost importance because it provides accurate prognostic estimation. Several crucial decisions, such as the treatment choice and the follow up strategy, are based on the tumor stage.Physical examination during staging procedure and follow-up visits are important to avoid unnecessary imaging and laboratory tests that could increase the patients' anxiety. A personalized approach taking into consideration the patient's risk factors, is strongly recommended.Melanoma patients should be kept under surveillance lifelong due to an increased risk of developing a second primary melanoma and the risk of recurrence. Higher intensity follow-up strategies during the first 5 years are recommended due to higher rates of regional or distant relapse.