Undifferentiated and Dedifferentiated Metastatic Melanomas Masquerading as Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Mutational Signature Analysis and Immunotherapy Response

The distinction between undifferentiated melanoma (UM) or dedifferentiated melanoma (DM) from undifferentiated or unclassifiable sarcoma can be difficult and requires the careful correlation of clinical, pathologic, and genomic findings. In this study, we examined the utility of mutational signatures to identify patients with UM/DM with particular attention as to whether this distinction matters for treatment because the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma has dramatically improved with immunologic therapy, whereas durable responses are less frequent in sarcomas. We identified 19 cases of UM/DM that were initially reported as unclassified or undifferentiated malignant neoplasm or sarcoma and submitted for targeted next-generation sequencing analysis. These cases were confirmed as UM/DM by harboring melanoma driver mutations, UV signature, and high tumor mutation burden. One case of DM showed melanoma in situ. Meanwhile, 18 cases represented metastatic UM/DM. Eleven patients had a prior history of melanoma. Thirteen of 19 (68%) of the tumors were immunohistochemically completely negative for 4 melanocytic markers (S100, SOX10, HMB45, and MELAN-A). All cases harbored a dominant UV signature. Frequent driver mutations involved BRAF (26%), NRAS (32%), and NF1 (42%). In contrast, the control cohort of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas (UPS) of deep soft tissue exhibited a dominant aging signature in 46.6% (7/15) without evidence of UV signature. The median tumor mutation burden for DM/UM vs UPS was 31.5 vs 7.0 mutations/Mb (P < .001). A favorable response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was observed in 66.6% (12/18) of patients with UM/DM. Eight patients exhibited a complete response and were alive with no evidence of disease at the last follow-up (median 45.5 months). Our findings support the usefulness of the UV signature in discriminating DM/UM vs UPS. Furthermore, we present evidence suggesting that patients with DM/UM and UV signatures can benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Current Status and Future Directions of Immunotherapies in Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Immunotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) has experienced a surge of interest in the past decade, contributing to an expanding number of therapeutic options for this extremely heterogenous group of rare malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) targeting the PD-1 and CTLA-4 axes have demonstrated promising responses in a select number of STS subtypes, including rarer subtypes, such as alveolar soft part sarcoma, SWI/SNF-deficient sarcomas, clear cell sarcoma, and angiosarcoma. Multiple pan-subtype sarcoma trials have facilitated the study of possible predictive biomarkers of the CPI response. It has also become apparent that certain therapies, when combined with CPIs, can enhance response rates, although the specific mechanisms of this possible synergy remain unconfirmed in STS. In addition to CPIs, several other immune targeting agents, including anti-tumour-associated macrophage and antigen-directed therapies, are now under assessment in STS with promising efficacy in some subtypes. In this article, we review the state of the art in immunotherapy in STS, highlighting the pre-clinical and clinical data available for this promising therapeutic strategy.

When Molecular-Targeted Agents Meet Immunotherapy: The Opportunities for Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) account for less than 1% of adult cancers with a median overall survival of 12 months in the metastatic setting. Although chemotherapy remains the standard of treatment for advanced disease, molecular targeted agents (MTAs) and immunotherapies are under intensive investigation in STS. The success of MTAs comes mainly from antiangiogenic agents in various STS subtypes, from colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor inhibitor in tenosynovial giant cell tumor and neurotrophic tropomyocin receptor kinase (NTRK) inhibitors while others, such as cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)-4 inhibitors, remain under evaluation. In advanced STS the activity of single-agent immunotherapy was not paradigm-changing as in other tumor types. A better understanding of tumor microenvironment, the immunogenic properties of MTAs, and finding an optimal treatment combination to improve patients outcomes became a central topic of research and discussion. Furthermore, the development and incorporation of transcriptomic profiling-based classification will allow identification, refined patient selection, and guided-treatment assignment. This article reviewed recent advances in STS treatment in MTAs and immunotherapy, strategies to overcome resistance, and outcomes of combination treatments in different STS subtypes. Promising preliminary results from combination strategies have shed light on STS treatment. The increasing understanding of this heterogeneous group of tumors and its microenvironment biology may help develop and guide treatment strategies with MTA and immunotherapies, alone or in combination, in a tailored way based on predictive and validated biomarkers and tumor molecular profiling in this new coming era.