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.

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

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapies have been approved for patients with AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) stage III and stage IV cutaneous melanoma (CM) after complete resection. These therapies might also be indicated for patients with high-risk stage II CM.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included patients diagnosed with stage II melanoma between 2000 and 2016 and for which primary tumour tissue was available. The prognostic value of the 11-gene expression profiling score (GEPS) was evaluated as a dichotomized parameter (GEPS ≤0 vs. >0). Endpoints of the analysis were melanoma specific survival (MSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

GEPS was determined in 245 patients ranging between -0.7 and 3.53. A total of 111 females and 134 males were included; the median follow-up was 41 months. Kaplan Meier analyses showed statistically significant survival differences between patients with high GEPS (n = 154) and low GEPS (n = 91) for MSS (p = 0.018), DMFS (p = 0.005) and RFS (p = 0.009). The 5-year and 10-year MSS was 92% in the low-GEPS and 82% and 67% in the high-GEPS group, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed independent significance for MSS of GEPS (HR = 1.55; p = 0.006), tumor thickness (HR = 1.21; p < 0.001) and age (HR1.05; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

GEPS was validated as independent prognostic factor for MSS in stage II CM and could be used for therapeutic decisions when systemic therapies become available in stage II CM.