Clinical impact of a 31-gene expression profile test for cutaneous melanoma in 156 prospectively and consecutively tested patients

Integrating the 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test Improves Metastatic Risk-Stratification Within Clinically Relevant Subgroups of High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients

INTRODUCTION

The validated 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test independently stratifies risk of regional or distant metastasis for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) tumors with high-risk clinicopathologic features. This study evaluated the stratification of risk by the 40-GEP test in a large cohort of tumors with one or more high-risk factors and in clinically relevant subgroups, including tumors within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high- and very-high-risk groups, lower-stage BWH T1 and T2a tumors, and patients > 65 years old.

METHODS

This multicenter (n = 58) performance study of the 40-GEP included 897 patients. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess risk stratification profiles for 40-GEP Class 1 (low), Class 2A (higher) and Class 2B (highest) risk groups, while nested Cox regression models were used to compare risk prediction of clinicopathologic risk classification systems versus risk classification systems in combination with 40-GEP.

RESULTS

Patients classified as 40-GEP Class 1, Class 2A, or Class 2B had significantly different metastatic risk profiles (p < 0.0001). Integrating 40-GEP results into models with individual clinicopathologic risk factors or risk classification systems (Brigham and Women's Hospital, American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition) and NCCN demonstrated significant improvement in accuracy for prediction of metastatic events (ANOVA for model deviance, p < 0.0001 for all models).

CONCLUSION

The 40-GEP test demonstrates accurate, independent, clinically actionable stratification of metastatic risk and improves predictive accuracy when integrated into risk classification systems. The improved accuracy of risk assessment when including tumor biology via the 40-GEP test ensures more risk-aligned, personalized patient management decisions.

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.

31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration

PURPOSE

The DecisionDx-Melanoma 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test is validated to classify cutaneous malignant melanoma (CM) patient risk of recurrence, metastasis, or death as low (class 1A), intermediate (class 1B/2A), or high (class 2B). This study aimed to examine the effect of 31-GEP testing on survival outcomes and confirm the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP at the population level.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III CM with a clinical 31-GEP result between 2016 and 2018 were linked to data from 17 SEER registries (n = 4,687) following registries' operation procedures for linkages. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS) differences by 31-GEP risk category were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression model to evaluate variables associated with survival. 31-GEP tested patients were propensity score-matched to a cohort of non-31-GEP tested patients from the SEER database. Robustness of the effect of 31-GEP testing was assessed using resampling.

RESULTS

Patients with a 31-GEP class 1A result had higher 3-year MSS and OS than patients with a class 1B/2A or class 2B result (MSS: 99.7% v 97.1% v 89.6%, P < .001; OS: 96.6% v 90.2% v 79.4%, P < .001). A class 2B result was an independent predictor of MSS (HR, 7.00; 95% CI, 2.70 to 18.00) and OS (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.70). 31-GEP testing was associated with a 29% lower MSS mortality (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94) and 17% lower overall mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) relative to untested patients.

CONCLUSION

In a population-based, clinically tested melanoma cohort, the 31-GEP stratified patients by their risk of dying from melanoma.

Incorporation of the 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test to Improve Treatment Decisions in High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients: Case Series and Algorithm

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has become a significant public health issue due to its rapidly rising incidence and an estimated 1.8 million newly diagnosed cases annually. As with other cancers, treatment decisions for patients with cSCC are based primarily on a patient's risk for poor outcomes. There has been improvement in clinicopathologic factor-based risk assessment approaches, either through informal methods or ever evolving staging approaches. However, these approaches misidentify patients who will eventually have disease progression as low-risk and conversely, over classify patients as high-risk who do not experience relapse. To improve the accuracy of risk assessment for patients with cSCC, the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test has been validated to show statistically significant stratification of a high-risk cSCC patient's risk of nodal or distant metastasis, independent of currently available risk-assessment methods. The 40-GEP test allows for a more accurate classification of metastatic risk for high-risk cSCC patients, with the aim to influence appropriate allocation of clinician time and therapeutic resources to those patients who will most benefit. The objective of this article is to present a treatment algorithm in which clinicians can easily integrate the results of the 40-GEP test into their current treatment approaches to tailor patient care based on individual tumor biology. The following modalities were considered: surveillance imaging, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), and clinical follow-up. The authors have contributed their own cases for discussion as to how they have seen the beneficial impact of 40-GEP test results in their own practice. Overall, clinicians can identify risk-aligned treatment pathway improvements with the use of the 40-GEP test for challenging to manage, high-risk cSCC patients.

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.

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.

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.

Attitudes of patients with cutaneous melanoma toward prognostic testing using the 31-gene expression profile test

OBJECTIVE

Although most patients diagnosed with early-stage cutaneous melanoma (CM) have excellent outcomes, because of the large number diagnosed each year, many will experience recurrence or death. Prognostic testing for CM using the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test can benefit patients by helping guide risk-appropriate treatment and surveillance plans. We sought to evaluate patients' attitudes toward prognostic testing with the 31-GEP and assess whether patients experience decision regret about having 31-GEP testing.

METHODS

A 43-question survey was distributed by the Melanoma Research Foundation in June-August 2021 to CM patients enrolled in their database. Patients were asked questions regarding their decision to undergo 31-GEP testing and the extent to which they experienced decision regret using a validated set of Decision Regret Scale questions.

RESULTS

We analyzed responses from patients diagnosed in 2014 or later (n  = 120). Of these, 28 had received 31-GEP testing. Most respondents (n  = 108, 90%) desired prognostic information when diagnosed. Of those who received 31-GEP testing, most felt the results were useful (n  = 22 out of 24) and had regret scores significantly less than neutral regret, regardless of their test results (Class 1: p  < 0.001; Class 2: p  = 0.036). Further, decision regret scores were not significantly different between patients who received a Class 1 31-GEP result and those who received a Class 2 result (mean Class 1 = 1.39 and mean Class 2 = 1.90, p  = 0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

Most newly diagnosed CM patients desired prognostic information about their tumors. Patients who received 31-GEP testing felt it was useful and did not regret their decision to undergo 31-GEP testing.

Expanded evidence that the 31-gene expression profile test provides clinical utility for melanoma management in a multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (CM) recommend physicians consider increased surveillance for patients who typically have lower melanoma survival rates (stages IIB-IV as determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 8th edition). However, up to 15% of patients identified as having a low recurrence risk (stages I-IIA) experience disease recurrence, and some patients identified as having a high recurrence risk will not experience any recurrence. The 31-gene expression profile test (31-GEP) stratifies patient recurrence risk into low (Class 1) and high (Class 2) and has demonstrated risk-appropriate impact on disease management and clinical decisions.

METHODS

Five-year plans for lab work, frequency of clinical visits, and imaging pre- and post-31-GEP test results were assessed for a cohort of 509 stage I-III patients following an interim subset analysis of 247 patients.

RESULTS

After receiving 31-GEP results, 50.6% of patients had a change in management plans in at least one of the following categories-clinical visits, lab work, or surveillance imaging. The changes aligned with the risk predicted by the 31-GEP for 76.1% of patients with a Class 1 result and 78.7% of patients with a Class 2 result. A Class 1 31-GEP result was associated with changes toward low-intensity management recommendations, while a Class 2 result was associated with changes toward high-intensity management recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The 31-GEP can stratify patient recurrence risk in patients with CM, and clinicians understand and apply the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP test to alter patient management in risk-appropriate directions.

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.

Current Methods and Caveats to Risk Factor Assessment in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC): A Narrative Review

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common form of skin cancer, and the number of deaths due to cSCC is estimated to be greater than the number attributed to melanoma. While the majority of cSCC tumors are resectable with clear margins by standard excision practices, some lesions exhibit high-risk factors for which there is evidence of their association with recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death. The most commonly used staging systems and guidelines in the USA for cSCC are based on these clinical and pathologic high-risk factors; however, these are limited in their ability to predict adverse events, thus posing a challenge for implementing risk-directed patient management. Since the development of local recurrence and/or metastasis has a profound impact on the survival of patients with cSCC, accurate identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes is critical, potentially allowing for early and appropriate adjuvant therapy. This review summarizes the current cSCC literature with a focus on how differing clinical assessments within each of the five selected risk factors (perineural invasion, differentiation, depth of invasion, size, and location) can influence the evaluation of patient outcomes, along with summarizing the utility of staging and guidelines, and highlighting the potential for molecular tools to improve upon cSCC risk assessment.

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.

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.

Exploration of the Prognostic and Immunotherapeutic Value of B and T Lymphocyte Attenuator in Skin Cutaneous Melanoma

B and T lymphocyte attenuator (BTLA) is a newly identified immune checkpoint molecular belonging to the CD28 immunoglobulin superfamily. However, the expression and clinical value of BTLA in skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) has not been widely characterized. We found that BTLA levels were upregulated in metastatic melanoma compared to normal skin tissues and primary melanoma. Higher BTLA was also correlated with improved prognosis in SKCM based on several datasets. The multivariate Cox regression model revealed that BTLA was an independent survival indicator in metastatic melanoma. Tumor microenvironment analysis indicated BTLA was positively associated with the infiltrating levels of different immune cells and the activity of the anti-cancer immunity cycle. Importantly, BTLA accurately predicted the outcome of melanoma patients treated with MAGE-A3 blocker or first-line anti-PD-1. The present findings disclose that BTLA is a reliable biomarker for prognosis and immunotherapeutic response and might contribute to developing novel SKCM immunological treatment strategies.

Evaluation of a Gene Expression Profiling Assay in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of deaths from cutaneous melanoma occur among patients with an initial diagnosis of stage 1 or 2 disease. The Decision-Dx Melanoma (DDM) 31-gene assay attempts to stratify these patients by risk of recurrence. This study aimed to evaluate this assay in a large single-institution series.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgery for melanoma at a large academic cancer center with DDM results was performed. Patient demographics, tumor pathologic characteristics, sentinel node status, gene expression profile (GEP) class, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were reviewed. The primary outcomes were recurrence of melanoma and distant metastatic recurrence.

RESULTS

Data from 361 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 15 months. Sentinel node biopsy was performed for 75.9% (n = 274) of the patients, 53 (19.4%) of whom tested positive. Overall, 13.6% (n = 49) of the patients had recurrence, and 8% (n = 29) had distant metastatic recurrence. The 3- and 5-year RFS rates were respectively 85% and 75% for the class 1A group, 74% and 47% for the class 1B/class 2A group, and 54% and 45% for the class 2B group. Increased Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitoses, sentinel node biopsy positivity, and GEP class 2B status were significantly associated with RFS and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the univariate analysis (all p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, only Breslow thickness and ulceration were associated with RFS (p < 0.003), and only Breslow thickness was associated with DMFS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Genetic profiling of cutaneous melanoma can assist in predicting recurrence and help determine the need for close surveillance. However, traditional pathologic factors remain the strongest independent predictors of recurrence risk.

Lymphadenectomy after a positive sentinel node biopsy in patients with cutaneous melanoma. A systematic review

Complete lymph node dissection (CLND) following a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been the standard treatment for years. However, there is increasing evidence that CLND could be omitted. Approximately 80% of patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy do not have additional nodal involvement; in these contexts, the SLNB could be diagnostic and therapeutic. However, in this group of patients, the therapeutic effect of CLND is unclear.

A systematic search was performed in EMBASE and MEDLINE (PubMed), for studies published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019. Studies were included when they compared immediate CLND and observation after a positive sentinel node. The outcomes of interest were: Overall Survival (OS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and disease-free survival (DFS).

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomized clinical trials reported no differences in OS or MSS when complete lymph dissection was compared with observation alone. An increase in regional relapse was observed in the CLND group, and in one randomized controlled trial (RCT) the rate of disease-free survival was superior in those patients.

Most populations in both RCTs had low sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) metastatic deposits, and head and neck melanomas were not included or underrepresented. When CNLD was omitted, an active surveillance protocol was carried out.

The evidence supports that CLND in SLNB positive patients does not confer a survival benefit. Sentinel tumor burden, localization of primary tumor, and feasibility of active surveillance should be taken into account in treatment decisions.

Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with surgical oncology practice within national guideline and staging recommendations

Aim: Define changes in clinical management resulting from the use of the prognostic 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for cutaneous melanoma in a surgical oncology practice. Patients & methods: Management plans for 112 consecutively tested patients with stage I-III melanoma were evaluated for duration and number of clinical visits, blood work and imaging. Results: 31-GEP high-risk (class 2; n = 46) patients received increased management compared with low-risk (class 1; n = 66) patients. Test results were most closely associated with follow-up and imaging. Of class 1 patients, 65% received surveillance intensity within guidelines for stage I-IIA patients; 98% of class 2 patients received surveillance intensity equal to stage IIB-IV patients. Conclusion: We suggest clinical follow-up and metastatic screening be adjusted according to 31-GEP test results.

Integrating gene expression profiling into NCCN high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma management recommendations: impact on patient management

Objective: To integrate gene expression profiling into the management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to improve risk-aligned management recommendations.Methods: A cohort of 300 NCCN-defined high-risk cSCC patients, along with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T stage, Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) T stage, and known patient outcomes were analyzed. Risk classifications using a validated 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test and T stage were applied to NCCN patient management guidelines. Risk-directed patient management recommendations within the NCCN guidelines framework were aligned based on risk for metastasis.Results: Of the 300 NCCN high-risk cSCC patients, 159 (53.0%) were 40-GEP Class 1 and AJCC T1-T2, and 173 (57.7%) were Class 1 and BWH T1-2a, indicating low risk for metastasis and, thereby, suggesting low management intensity. The 40-GEP integration suggested high intensity management for only 24 (8.0%) patients (all Class 2B), and moderate intensity management for the remainder of the cohort.Conclusions: The 40-GEP test can be integrated within existing NCCN guideline recommendations for managing cSCC patients to help refine risk-directed management decisions. Integration of the 40-GEP test would allow >50% of this NCCN-defined high-risk cohort to be managed with the lowest intensity recommendations within the broad NCCN guidelines. High intensity management was deemed risk-appropriate for a small subpopulation (8.0%). This study demonstrates that the 40-GEP test, in combination with T stage, has clinical utility to impact patient management decisions in NCCN high-risk cSCC for improving risk-aligned management within the NCCN guidelines framework.

Current Molecular Markers of Melanoma and Treatment Targets

Melanoma is a deadly skin cancer that becomes especially difficult to treat after it metastasizes. Timely identification of melanoma is critical for effective therapy, but histopathologic diagnosis can frequently pose a significant challenge to this goal. Therefore, auxiliary diagnostic tools are imperative to facilitating prompt recognition of malignant lesions. Melanoma develops as result of a number of genetic mutations, with UV radiation often acting as a mutagenic risk factor. Novel methods of genetic testing have improved detection of these molecular alterations, which subsequently revealed important information for diagnosis and prognosis. Rapid detection of genetic alterations is also significant for choosing appropriate treatment and developing targeted therapies for melanoma. This review will delve into the understanding of various mutations and the implications they may pose for clinical decision making.

Validation of a 40-gene expression profile test to predict metastatic risk in localized high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Current staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have limited positive predictive value for identifying patients who will experience metastasis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a gene expression profile (GEP) test for predicting risk for metastasis in localized, high-risk cSCC with the goal of improving risk-directed patient management.

METHODS

Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary cSCC tissue and clinicopathologic data (n = 586) were collected from 23 independent centers in a prospectively designed study. A GEP signature was developed using a discovery cohort (n = 202) and validated in a separate, nonoverlapping, independent cohort (n = 324).

RESULTS

A prognostic 40-GEP test was developed and validated, stratifying patients with high-risk cSCC into classes based on metastasis risk: class 1 (low risk), class 2A (high risk), and class 2B (highest risk). For the validation cohort, 3-year metastasis-free survival rates were 91.4%, 80.6%, and 44.0%, respectively. A positive predictive value of 60% was achieved for the highest-risk group (class 2B), an improvement over staging systems, and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were comparable to staging systems.

LIMITATIONS

Potential understaging of cases could affect metastasis rate accuracy.

CONCLUSION

The 40-GEP test is an independent predictor of metastatic risk that can complement current staging systems for patients with high-risk cSCC.

Molecular risk prediction in cutaneous melanoma: A meta-analysis of the 31-gene expression profile prognostic test in 1,479 patients

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have reported on the accuracy of the prognostic 31-gene expression profile test for cutaneous melanoma. Consistency of the test results across studies has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the robustness of the prognostic value of the 31-gene expression profile.

METHODS

Raw data were obtained from studies identified from systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed to determine overall effect of the 31-gene expression profile. Clinical outcome metrics for the 31-gene expression profile were compared with American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.

RESULTS

Three studies met inclusion criteria; data from a novel cohort of 211 patients were included (n = 1,479). Five-year recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 91.4% and 94.1% for Class 1A patients and 43.6% and 55.5% for Class 2B patients (P < .0001). Meta-analysis results showed that Class 2 was significantly associated with recurrence (hazard ratio 2.90; P < .0001) and distant metastasis (hazard ratio 2.75; P < .0001). The 31-gene expression profile identified American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I to III patient subsets with high likelihood for recurrence and distant metastasis. Sensitivity was 76% (95% confidence interval 71%-80%) and 76% (95% confidence interval 70%-82%) for each end point, respectively. When 31-gene expression profile and sentinel lymph node biopsy results were considered together, sensitivity and negative predictive value for distant metastasis-free survival were both improved.

CONCLUSION

The 31-gene expression profile test consistently and accurately identifies melanoma patients at increased risk of metastasis, is independent of other clinicopathologic covariates, and augments current risk stratification by reclassifying patients for heightened surveillance who were previously designated as being at low risk.

Level of Evidence Review for a Gene Expression Profile Test for Cutaneous Melanoma

BACKGROUND

The advent of molecular medicine may allow for individualized cancer prognostication, which should enable better clinical management and, hopefully, improve patient outcomes. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test is currently available for patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma; this test helps inform patients' individual treatment plans, especially when combined with traditional biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review the current literature and establish the level of evidence for a cutaneous melanoma 31-GEP test.

METHODS

A review of seven development and validation studies for the 31-GEP test was conducted. The respective strengths and weaknesses of each study were applied to the level of evidence criteria from major organizations that publish guidelines for melanoma management: American Joint Committee on Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Academy of Dermatology.

RESULTS

Evaluating each study led to classifying the 31-GEP test as level I/II, I-IIIB, and IIA according to American Joint Committee on Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Academy of Dermatology criteria, respectively. This stands in contrast to the official unrated status conferred by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the II/IIIC rating designated by the American Academy of Dermatology.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between the authors' findings and official published ratings may be attributed to chronological issues, as many of the studies were not yet published when the aforementioned organizations conducted their reviews. There was also difficulty in applying the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria to this prognostic test, as their guidelines were intended for evaluation of predictive markers. Nevertheless, based upon the most current data available, integration of the 31-GEP test into clinical practice may be warranted in certain clinical situations.

Nonsurgical Management of Lymph Node Basins in Melanoma

In this article we provide a critical review of the evidence available for surgical management of the nodal basin in melanoma, with an aim to ensure an understanding of risks and benefits for all lymph node surgery offered to patients, and alternatives to surgical management where appropriate.

Prospective validation of the prognostic 31-gene expression profiling test in primary cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Gene expression profiling (GEP) has been integrated into cancer treatment decision-making in multiple neoplasms. We prospectively evaluated the prognostic utility of the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma, Castle Biosciences, Inc) in cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy (SNB).

METHODS

One hundred fifty-nine patients (age 26-88) diagnosed with melanoma between 01/2013 and 8/2015 underwent SNB and concurrent GEP testing. GEP results were reported as low-risk Class 1 (subclasses 1A and 1B) or high-risk Class 2 (subclasses 2A and 2B). Statistical analyses were performed with chi-square analysis, t tests, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard models. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 44.9 months for event-free cases. Median Breslow thickness was 1.4 mm (0.2-15.0 mm). There were 117 Class 1 and 42 Class 2 patients. Gender, age, Breslow thickness, ulceration, SNB positivity, and AJCC stage were significantly associated with GEP classification (P < 0.05 for all). Recurrence and distant metastasis rates were 5% and 1% for Class 1 patients compared with 55% and 36% for Class 2 patients. Sensitivities of Class 2 and SNB for recurrence were 79% and 34%, respectively. Of 10 SNB-positive/Class 2 patients, 9 recurred. By multivariate analysis, only SNB result and GEP class were statistically associated with both RFS (P = 0.008 and 0.0001) and DMFS (P = 0.019 and 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Gene expression profiling Class 2 result and SNB positivity were independently associated with recurrence and distant metastasis in primary CM patients. GEP testing may have additive prognostic utility in initial staging work-up of these patients.

Surveillance imaging for metastasis in high-risk melanoma: importance in individualized patient care and survivorship

Most patients newly diagnosed with melanoma have early-stage disease considered of good prognosis. However, with a risk of recurrence, appropriate follow-up may include surveillance imaging for early relapse detection. Previously, surveillance imaging to detect recurrences was considered unjustified, given the lack of effective treatments. Now, systemic therapies have improved, and patients with low tumor burden may derive benefit from surveillance imaging. Despite this, controversy exists regarding the role of surveillance imaging in early-stage melanoma survivorship, in part reflected by the lack of consensus on specific imaging protocols and broad guidelines. This review discusses published evidence on surveillance imaging to detect metastasis in high-risk melanoma, the need for early recurrence detection and implications for value-based clinical decision-making, survivorship care and multidisciplinary patient management.

Updates in Melanoma

Skin cancer is reaching epidemic levels in the United States. Recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of melanoma have allowed improved risk stratification in the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) criteria, new tests to capture patients at higher risk than their stage may indicate, and new treatments to offer hope and cures to patients with advanced disease.

Early outcome of a 31-gene expression profile test in 86 AJCC stage IB-II melanoma patients. A prospective multicentre cohort study

Background

The clinical and pathological features of primary melanoma are not sufficiently sensitive to accurately predict which patients are at a greater risk of relapse. Recently, a 31‐gene expression profile (DecisionDx‐Melanoma) test has shown promising results.

Objectives

To evaluate the early prognostic performance of a genetic signature in a multicentre prospectively evaluated cohort.

Methods

Inclusion of patients with AJCC stages IB and II conducted between April 2015 and December 2016. All patients were followed up prospectively to assess their risk of relapse. Prognostic performance of this test was evaluated individually and later combined with the AJCC staging system. Prognostic accuracy of disease‐free survival was determined using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. Results of the gene expression profile test were designated as Class 1 (low risk) and Class 2 (high risk).

Results

Median follow‐up time was 26 months (IQR 22–30). The gene expression profile test was performed with 86 patients; seven had developed metastasis (8.1%) and all of them were in the Class 2 group, representing 21.2% of this group. Gene expression profile was an independent prognostic factor for relapse as indicated by multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusted for AJCC stages and age.

Conclusions

This prospective multicentre cohort study, performed in a Spanish Caucasian cohort, shows that this 31‐gene expression profile test could correctly identify patients at early AJCC stages who are at greater risk of relapse. We believe that gene expression profile in combination with the AJCC staging system could well improve the detection of patients who need intensive surveillance and optimize follow‐up strategies.

What's New in Melanoma

Melanoma is rapidly evolving because of advances in noninvasive diagnosis, targeted therapies, and improved prognostic methods. This article discusses what is new in melanoma risk factors, prevention, clinical management, and targeted treatment. The incidence continues to increase worldwide, whereas mortality is steadily improving. This trend reinforces the importance of dermatologists comprehensively understanding all aspects of melanoma. Further research is needed to continue making a material impact on outcomes for patients.

Identification of risk in cutaneous melanoma patients: Prognostic and predictive markers

New therapeutic modalities for melanoma promise benefit in selected individuals. Efficacy appears greater in patients with lower tumor burden, suggesting an important role for risk-stratified surveillance. Robust predictive markers might permit optimization of agent to patient, while low-risk prognostic markers might guide more conservative management. This review evaluates protein, gene, and multiplexed marker panels that may contribute to better risk assessment and improved management of patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Use of gene expression profile testing as a prognostic tool in early-stage cutaneous melanoma - compelling but not ready for primetime

Advances in the field of molecular genetics have led to the development of multiple tests capable of identifying genetic changes within cutaneous melanoma. Although the majority of these tests are currently used for diagnostic purposes, their potential use as prognostic tools is rapidly emerging. A new 31-gene expression profile test has been developed that promises to accurately predict metastatic risk in patients with early-stage cutaneous melanoma. Although current data are promising, many questions remain in terms of its potential effects in patient care. Thus, before this test is used routinely in clinical practice, we recommend that it first be performed as part of current adjuvant treatment trials as a potential predictive marker or other high-quality studies investigating relevant outcomes resulting from changes in the clinical management of patients on the basis of the gene expression profile test results.

Gene expression profiling in melanoma: past results and future potential

The field of melanoma oncology is rapidly evolving with advances in detection, staging and treatment. There is heterogeneity in all stages of melanoma where some patients fare better than others for reasons currently unknown and it is sometimes unclear which patients warrant closer surveillance, multidisciplinary care, increased imaging, more aggressive surgery or adjuvant therapy. Early studies have shown the predictive ability of gene expression profiling (GEP) and institutions that have adopted GEP for melanoma treatment have demonstrated changes in practice patterns and patient management. The goal of this paper is to review the clinical evidence for a new diagnostic test, DecisionDx-Melanoma, the only GEP test for cutaneous melanoma with prospective studies analyzing its utility.

Melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma causes 55 500 deaths annually. The incidence and mortality rates of the disease differ widely across the globe depending on access to early detection and primary care. Once melanoma has spread, this type of cancer rapidly becomes life-threatening. For more than 40 years, few treatment options were available, and clinical trials during that time were all unsuccessful. Over the past 10 years, increased biological understanding and access to innovative therapeutic substances have transformed advanced melanoma into a new oncological model for treating solid cancers. Treatments that target B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-kinase (BRAF)V600 (Val600) mutations using selected BRAF inhibitors combined with mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors have significantly improved response and overall survival. Furthermore, advanced cutaneous melanoma has developed into a prototype for testing checkpoint-modulating agents, which has increased hope for long-term tumour containment and a potential cure. These expectations have been sustained by clinical success with targeted agents and antibodies that block programmed cell-death protein 1 in locoregional disease, which induces prolongation of relapse-free, distant-metastasis-free, and overall survival times.

Identification of patients at risk of metastasis using a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in subpopulations of melanoma patients with favorable outcomes by standard criteria

BACKGROUND

A substantial number of patients who relapse and die from cutaneous melanoma (CM) are categorized as being at low risk by traditional staging factors. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test independently stratifies metastatic risk of patients with CM as low (Class 1, with 1A indicating lowest risk) or high (Class 2,with 2B indicating highest risk).

OBJECTIVE

To assess risk prediction by the 31-GEP test within 3 low-risk (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer) populations of patients with CM: those who are sentinel lymph node (SLN) negative, those with stage I to IIA tumors, and those with thin (≤1 mm [T1]) tumors.

METHODS

A total of 3 previous validation studies provided a nonoverlapping cohort of 690 patients with 31-GEP results, staging information, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The results included the identification of 70% of SLN-negative patients who experienced metastasis as Class 2, the discovery of reduced recurrence-free survival for patients with thin tumors and Class 2B biology compared with that of those with Class 1A biology (P < .0001); and determination of the 31-GEP test as an independent predictor of risk compared with traditional staging factors in patients with stage I to IIA tumors.

LIMITATIONS

Diagnoses spanned multiple versions of pathologic staging criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The 31-GEP test identifies high-risk patients who are likely to experience recurrence or die of melanoma within low-risk groups of subpopulations of patients with CM who have SLN-negative disease, stage I to IIA tumors, and thin tumors.

Breslow Density Is a Novel Prognostic Feature That Adds Value to Melanoma Staging

Histomorphologic prognostic biomarkers that can be measured using only an hematoxylin and eosin stain are very attractive because they are simple and cheap. We conceived an entirely novel biomarker of this type, the Breslow density (BD), which measures invasive melanoma cell density at the site where Breslow thickness (BT) is measured. This study assessed BD's prognostic value. In this study, BD was measured in 1329 melanoma patients. Measurement accuracy and precision was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Survival was assessed with a primary end-point of melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and also overall survival and metastasis-free survival. We found that BD measurement was accurate compared with gold standard image analysis (ICC, 0.84). Precision was excellent for 3 observers with different experience (ICC, 0.93) and for an observer using only written instructions (ICC, 0.93). BD was a highly significant predictor in multivariable analysis for overall survival, MSS, and metastasis-free survival (each, P<0.001) and it explained MSS better than BT, but BT and BD together had best explanatory capability. A BD cut point of ≥65% was trained in 970 melanomas and validated in 359. This cut point showed promise as a novel way to upstage melanoma from T stage "a" to "b." BD was combined with BT to create a targeted burden score. This was a validated as an adjunct to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage. In summary, BD can be measured accurately and precisely. It demonstrated independent prognostic value and explained MSS better than BT alone. Notably, we demonstrated ways that BD could be used with American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging.

Analytic validity of DecisionDx-Melanoma, a gene expression profile test for determining metastatic risk in melanoma patients

BACKGROUND

The DecisionDx-Melanoma test provides prognostic information for patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM). Using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumor tissue, the RT-PCR-based test classifies patients into a low- (Class 1) or high-risk (Class 2) category for recurrence based on expression of 31 genes. The current study was designed to assess the analytical validity of this test.

METHODS

Inter-assay, inter-instrument, and inter-operator studies were performed to evaluate reliability of the 31-gene expression test results, sample stability and reagent stability. From March 2013 through June 2016, the gene expression test was performed on 8244 CM tumors. De-identified data from Pathology Reports were used to assess technical success.

RESULTS

Robust sample and reagent stability was observed. Inter-assay concordance on 168 specimens run on 2 consecutive days was 99% and matched probability scores were significantly correlated (R² = 0.96). Inter-instrument concordance was 95%, and probability scores had a correlation R² of 0.99 (p < 0.001). From 8244 CM specimens submitted since 2013, 85% (7023) fulfilled pre-specified tumor content parameters. In these samples with sufficient tumor requirements, the technical success of the test was 98%.

CONCLUSION

DecisionDx-Melanoma is a robust gene expression profile test that demonstrates strong reproducibility between experiments and has high technical reliability on clinical samples.

Evaluation of the eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for malignant melanoma of the skin

AIM

To validate the changes among the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) eighth staging system for cutaneous melanoma.

METHODOLOGY

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2014) was queried. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were evaluated according to both AJCC seventh and eighth systems.

RESULTS

Overall survival was assessed according to the two editions and p-values for overall trend were significant (p < 0.001) for all scenarios. Notably for pathologically staged patients, the mean survival for stage IIC was lower than that for stage IIIA and IIIB. Likewise, among clinically staged patients the mean survival for stage IIC was lower than that for stage III (these findings were identical among both editions).

CONCLUSION

AJCC eighth system holds comparable performance to AJCC seventh system.

Assessing Genetic Expression Profiles in Melanoma Prognosis

A 31-genetic expression profile (31-GEP) test (DecisionDx-Melanoma, Castle Biosciences Inc, Friendswood, TX, USA) was developed as a diagnostic test to assist physicians in the management of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Based on a patient's primary tumor expression levels of a panel of genes (28 discriminating genes and 3 control genes), a lesion is classified as "low risk" (class 1) or "high risk" (class 2) for metastasis. Studies evaluating the clinical utility and impact of the 31-GEP test showed it positively influenced clinical management and patient care, as clinicians incorporated the additional data to modify their clinical recommendations in a risk-appropriate manner.

Underexpression of Specific Interferon Genes Is Associated with Poor Prognosis of Melanoma

Because the prognosis of melanoma is challenging and inaccurate when using current clinical approaches, clinicians are seeking more accurate molecular markers to improve risk models. Accordingly, we performed a survival analysis on 404 samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort of skin cutaneous melanoma. Using our recently developed gene network model, we identified biological signatures that confidently predict the prognosis of melanoma (p-value < 10-5). Our model predicted 38 cases as low-risk and 54 cases as high-risk. The probability of surviving at least 5 years was 64% for low-risk and 14% for high-risk cases. In particular, we found that the overexpression of specific genes in the mitotic cell cycle pathway and the underexpression of specific genes in the interferon pathway are both associated with poor prognosis. We show that our predictive model assesses the risk more accurately than the traditional Clark staging method. Therefore, our model can help clinicians design treatment strategies more effectively. Furthermore, our findings shed light on the biology of melanoma and its prognosis. This is the first in vivo study that demonstrates the association between the interferon pathway and the prognosis of melanoma.

Identification of high-risk cutaneous melanoma tumors is improved when combining the online American Joint Committee on Cancer Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool with a 31-gene expression profile-based classification

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-defined early-stage cutaneous melanoma have disease recurrence and die. A 31-gene expression profile (GEP) that accurately assesses metastatic risk associated with primary cutaneous melanomas has been described.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare accuracy of the GEP in combination with risk determined using the web-based AJCC Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool.

METHODS

GEP results from 205 stage I/II cutaneous melanomas with sufficient clinical data for prognostication using the AJCC tool were classified as low (class 1) or high (class 2) risk. Two 5-year overall survival cutoffs (AJCC 79% and 68%), reflecting survival for patients with stage IIA or IIB disease, respectively, were assigned for binary AJCC risk.

RESULTS

Cox univariate analysis revealed significant risk classification of distant metastasis-free and overall survival (hazard ratio range 3.2-9.4, P < .001) for both tools. In all, 43 (21%) cases had discordant GEP and AJCC classification (using 79% cutoff). Eleven of 13 (85%) deaths in that group were predicted as high risk by GEP but low risk by AJCC.

LIMITATIONS

Specimens reflect tertiary care center referrals; more effective therapies have been approved for clinical use after accrual.

CONCLUSIONS

The GEP provides valuable prognostic information and improves identification of high-risk melanomas when used together with the AJCC online prediction tool.