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

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.

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.

The 31-Gene Expression Profile Test Outperforms AJCC in Stratifying Risk of Recurrence in Patients with Stage I Cutaneous Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with stage I cutaneous melanoma (CM) are considered at low risk for metastasis or melanoma specific death; however, because the majority of patients are diagnosed with stage I disease, they represent the largest number of melanoma deaths annually. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test has been prospectively validated to provide prognostic information independent of staging, classifying patients as low (Class 1A), intermediate (Class 1B/2A), or high (Class 2B) risk of poor outcomes.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in previous studies of the 31-GEP were combined and evaluated for recurrence-free (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) (n = 1261, "combined"). A second large, unselected real-world cohort (n = 5651) comprising clinically tested patients diagnosed 2013-2018 who were linked to outcomes data from the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries was evaluated for MSS.

RESULTS

Combined cohort Class 1A patients had significantly higher RFS than Class 1B/2A or Class 2B patients (97.3%, 88.6%, 77.3%, p < 0.001)-better risk stratification than AJCC8 stage IA (97.5%) versus IB (89.3%). The SEER cohort showed better MSS stratification by the 31-GEP (Class 1A = 98.0%, Class 1B/2A = 97.5%, Class 2B = 92.3%; p < 0.001) than by AJCC8 staging (stage IA = 97.6%, stage IB = 97.9%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 31-GEP test significantly improved patient risk stratification, independent of AJCC8 staging in patients with stage I CM. The 31-GEP provided greater separation between high- (Class 2B) and low-risk (Class 1A) groups than seen between AJCC stage IA and IB. These data support integrating the 31-GEP into clinical decision making for more risk-aligned management plans.

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.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.