Interim analysis of survival in a prospective, multi-center registry cohort of cutaneous melanoma tested with a prognostic 31-gene expression profile test

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.

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.

Modern Approach to Melanoma Adjuvant Treatment with Anti-PD1 Immune Check Point Inhibitors or BRAF/MEK Targeted Therapy: Multicenter Real-World Report

BACKGROUND

The landscape of melanoma management changed as randomized trials have launched adjuvant treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of data on 248 consecutive melanoma stage III and IV patients given adjuvant therapy in eight centers (February 2019 to January 2021) was conducted.

RESULTS

The analyzed cohort comprised 147 melanoma patients given anti-PD1 (33% nivolumab, 26% pembrolizumab), and 101 (41%) were given dabrafenib plus trametinib (DT). The 2-year overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and distant-metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates were 86.7%, 61.4%, and 70.2%, respectively. The disease stage affected only the RFS rate; for stage IV, it was 52.2% (95% CI: 33.4-81.5%) vs. 62.5% (95% CI: 52.3-74.8%) for IIIA-D, p = 0.0033. The type of lymph node surgery before adjuvant therapy did not influence the outcomes. Completion of lymph node dissection cessation after positive SLNB did not affect the results in terms of RFS or OS. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were associated with longer 24-month RFS, with a rate of 68.7% (55.5-84.9%) for TRAE vs. 56.6% (45.8-70%) without TRAE, p = 0.0031. For TRAE of grade ≥ 3, a significant decline in OS to 60.6% (26.9-100%; p = 0.004) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Melanoma adjuvant therapy with anti-PD1 or DT outside clinical trials appears to be effective and comparable with the results of registration studies. Our data support a de-escalating surgery approach in melanoma treatment.

Molecular testing in melanoma for the surgical pathologist

The diagnostic work-up of melanocytic tumours has undergone significant changes in the last years following the exponential growth of molecular assays. For the practising pathologist it is often difficult to sort through the multitude of different tests that are currently available for clinical use. The molecular tests used in melanocytic pathology can be broadly divided into four categories: (1) tests that predict response to systemic therapy in melanoma; (2) tests that predict prognosis in melanoma; (3) tests useful in determining the type or class of melanocytic tumour; and (4) tests useful in the differential diagnosis of naevus versus melanoma (primarily used as an aid in the diagnosis of histologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions). This review will present an updated synopsis of major molecular ancillary tests used in clinical practice.

Tissue Biomarkers Predicting Lymph Node Status in Cutaneous Melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma is a severe neoplasm that shows early invasiveness of the lymph nodes draining the primary site, with increased risk of distant metastases and recurrence. The tissue biomarker identification could be a new frontier to predict the risk of early lymph node invasiveness, especially in cases considered by current guidelines to be at low risk of lymph node involvement and not requiring evaluation of the sentinel lymph node (SLN). For this reason, we present a narrative review of the literature, seeking to provide an overview of current tissue biomarkers, particularly vascular endothelium growth factors (VEGF), Tetraspanin CD9, lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor-1 (LYVE-1), D2-40, and gene expression profile test (31-GEP). Among these, 31-GEP seems to be able to provide a distinction between low or high risk for positive SLN classes. VEGF receptor-3 and CD9 expression may be independent predictors of positive SLN. Lastly, LYVE-1 and D2-40 allow an easier assessment of lymph vascular invasion, which can be considered a good predictor of SLN status. In conclusion, biomarkers to assess the lymph node status of cutaneous melanoma patients may play an important role in those cases where the clinician is in doubt whether or not to perform SLN biopsy.

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.

Using Gene Expression Profiling to Personalize Skin Cancer Management

Risk-stratification of cancer, traditionally performed through staging, directs optimal disease management decisions with the result of improved patient outcomes. Many forms of cutaneous cancer have overall excellent survival rates, but conventional staging methods are imperfect in identifying high-risk patients. Gene expression profiling (GEP) is a clinically available, objective metric that can be used in conjunction with traditional clinicopathological staging to help clinicians stratify risk in patients with skin cancer, even in those who lack traditional risk markers. For patients with melanoma, the 31-GEP test provides personalized prognostic information that can guide risk-appropriate clinical management and surveillance decisions. The i31-GEP integrates 31-GEP results with clinicopathological features to provide a risk of recurrence (i31-GEP for ROR) and likelihood of having a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) (i31-GEP for SLNB) for patients with melanoma. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma who have at least one risk factor, the 40-GEP test allows for better risk stratification by identifying the high-risk patients who are most likely to develop metastasis. These tests can be easily integrated into clinical practice to help guide treatment choices.

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.

Development and validation of a nomogram incorporating gene expression profiling and clinical factors for accurate prediction of metastasis in patients with cutaneous melanoma following Mohs micrographic surgery

BACKGROUND

There is a need to improve prognostic accuracy for patients with cutaneous melanoma. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test uses the molecular biology of primary tumors to identify individual patient metastatic risk.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a nomogram incorporating 31-GEP with relevant clinical factors to improve prognostic accuracy.

METHODS

In an IRB-approved study, 1124 patients from 9 Mohs micrographic surgery centers were prospectively enrolled, treated with Mohs micrographic surgery, and underwent 31-GEP testing. Data from 684 of those patients with at least 1-year follow-up or a metastatic event were included in nomogram development to predict metastatic risk.

RESULTS

Logistic regression modeling of 31-GEP results and T stage provided the simplest nomogram with the lowest Bayesian information criteria score. Validation in an archival cohort (n = 901) demonstrated a significant linear correlation between observed and nomogram-predicted risk of metastasis. The resulting nomogram more accurately predicts the risk for cutaneous melanoma metastasis than T stage or 31-GEP alone.

LIMITATIONS

The patient population is representative of Mohs micrographic surgery centers. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was not performed for most patients and could not be used in the nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of 31-GEP and T stage can gain clinically useful prognostic information from data obtained noninvasively.

Follow-up of primary melanoma patients with high risk of recurrence: recommendations based on evidence and consensus

In spite of the good prognosis of patients with early-stage melanoma, there is a substantial proportion of them that develop local or distant relapses. With the introduction of targeted and immune therapies for advanced melanoma, including at the adjuvant setting, early detection of recurrent melanoma and/or second primary lesions is crucial to improve clinical outcomes. However, there is a lack of universal guidelines regarding both frequency of surveillance visits and diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory evaluations. In this article, a multidisciplinary expert panel recommends, after careful review of relevant data in the field, a consensus- and experience-based follow-up strategy for melanoma patients, taking into account prognostic factors and biomarkers and the high-risk periods and patterns of recurrence in each (sub) stage of the disease. Apart from the surveillance intensity, healthcare professionals should focus on patients' education to perform regular self-examinations of the skin and palpation of lymph nodes.

Enhanced metastatic risk assessment in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with the 40-gene expression profile test

Aim: To clinically validate the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients and evaluate coupling the test with individual clinicopathologic risk factor-based assessment methods. Patients & methods: In a 33-site study, primary tumors with known patient outcomes were assessed under clinical testing conditions (n = 420). The 40-GEP results were integrated with clinicopathologic risk factors. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed for metastasis. Results: The 40-GEP test demonstrated significant prognostic value. Risk classification was improved via integration of 40-GEP results with clinicopathologic risk factor-based assessment, with metastasis rates near the general cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma population for Class 1 and ≥50% for Class 2B. Conclusion: Combining molecular profiling with clinicopathologic risk factor assessment enhances stratification of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients and may inform decision-making for risk-appropriate management strategies.

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.

Integrating 31-Gene Expression Profiling With Clinicopathologic Features to Optimize Cutaneous Melanoma Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction

National guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) be offered to patients with > 10% likelihood of sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity. On the other hand, guidelines do not recommend SLNB for patients with T1a tumors without high-risk features who have < 5% likelihood of a positive SLN. However, the decision to perform SLNB is less certain for patients with higher-risk T1 melanomas in which a positive node is expected 5%-10% of the time. We hypothesized that integrating clinicopathologic features with the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) score using advanced artificial intelligence techniques would provide more precise SLN risk prediction.

Risk Stratification of Patients with Stage I Cutaneous Melanoma Using 31-Gene Expression Profiling

BACKGROUND

While patients with localized cutaneous melanoma (CM) generally have good five-year melanoma-specific survival rates, identifying patients with localized disease at a high risk of recurrence could allow them access to additional follow-up or surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the prognostic value of the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for the risk of recurrence in stage I CM patients according to 31-GEP main class (low risk: Class 1 vs. high-risk: Class 2) and the lowest and highest risk 31-GEP subclasses (Class 1A vs. Class 2B).

METHODS

Data from a previously described meta-analysis detailing the 31-GEP results for patients with stage I CM (N = 623) were re-analyzed to determine 31-GEP accuracy.

RESULTS

Patients with stage I CM and a Class 1 31-GEP result were less likely to have a recurrence (15/556; 2.7% vs. 6/67; 9.0%; p=0.018) than patients with a Class 2 result and had a higher five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (96% vs. 85%). Patients with a Class 2 result were 2.8 times as likely to experience a recurrence (positive likelihood ratio: 2.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.38-5.77). In a subset of patients with stage I CM stratified further into 31-GEP subclasses (n = 206), patients with a Class 1A result had a higher five-year RFS than those with a Class 2B result (98% vs. 73%). Patients with a Class 2B result were also 6.5 times as likely to experience a recurrence (positive likelihood ratio: 6.45; 95% confidence interval: 2.44-17.00) than those with a Class 1A result, and the 31-GEP had a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% confidence interval: 92.3%-98.4%).

CONCLUSION

The 31-GEP test significantly differentiates between low and high recurrence risk in patients with stage I CM.

New Microbiological Techniques for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections and Sepsis in ICU Including Point of Care

Purpose of Review

The aim of this article is to review current and emerging microbiological techniques that support the rapid diagnosis of bacterial infections in critically ill patients, including their performance, strengths and pitfalls, as well as available data evaluating their clinical impact.

Recent Findings

Bacterial infections and sepsis are responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit and their management is further complicated by the increase in the global burden of antimicrobial resistance. In this setting, new diagnostic methods able to overcome the limits of traditional microbiology in terms of turn-around time and accuracy are highly warranted. We discuss the following broad themes: optimisation of existing culture-based methodologies, rapid antigen detection, nucleic acid detection (including multiplex PCR assays and microarrays), sepsis biomarkers, novel methods of pathogen detection (e.g. T2 magnetic resonance) and susceptibility testing (e.g. morphokinetic cellular analysis) and the application of direct metagenomics on clinical samples. The assessment of the host response through new “omics” technologies might also aid in early diagnosis of infections, as well as define non-infectious inflammatory states.

Summary

Despite being a promising field, there is still scarce evidence about the real-life impact of these assays on patient management. A common finding of available studies is that the performance of rapid diagnostic strategies highly depends on whether they are integrated within active antimicrobial stewardship programs. Assessing the impact of these emerging diagnostic methods through patient-centred clinical outcomes is a complex challenge for which large and well-designed studies are awaited.

Identifying High-Risk Tumors within AJCC Stage IB-III Melanomas Using a Seven-Marker Immunohistochemical Signature

Simple Summary

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are widely accepted for stage III and IV melanoma patients. Clinical investigation of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma has already started. Therefore, methods for relapse prediction in lower stage melanoma patients apart from sentinel node biopsies are much needed to guide (neo)adjuvant therapies. Gene scores such as the “DecisionDx-Melanoma” and the “MelaGenix” score can help assist therapy decisions. However, a seven-marker immunohistochemical signature could add valuable feasibility to the biomarker toolbox.

Abstract

Background: We aim to validate a seven-marker immunohistochemical signature, consisting of Bax, Bcl-X, PTEN, COX-2, (loss of) ß-Catenin, (loss of) MTAP and (presence of) CD20, in an independent patient cohort and test clinical feasibility. Methods: We performed staining of the mentioned antibodies in tissue of 88 primary melanomas and calculated a risk score for each patient. Data were correlated with clinical parameters and outcome (recurrence-free, distant metastasis-free and melanoma-specific survival). Results: The seven-marker signature was able to identify high-risk patients within stages IB-III melanoma patients that have a significantly higher risk of disease recurrence, metastasis, and death. In particular, the high sensitivity of relapse prediction (>94%) in sentinel negative patients (stages IB–IIC) was striking (negative predictive value of 100% for melanoma-specific survival and distant metastasis-free survival, and 97.5% for relapse-free survival). For stage III patients (positive nodal status), the negative predictive value was 100% with the seven-marker signature. Conclusions: The seven-marker signature can help to further select high-risk patients in stages IIB-C but also in earlier stages IB–IIA and be a useful tool for therapy decisions in the adjuvant and future neo-adjuvant settings. Stage III patients with measurable lymph node disease classified as high-risk with the seven-marker signature are potential candidates for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma: beyond histologic factors

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy should be performed with the technical expertise required to correctly identify the sentinel node, in the context of understanding both the likelihood of positivity in a given patient and the prognostic significance of a positive or negative result. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend SLN biopsy for all cutaneous melanoma patients with primary tumor thickness greater than 1 mm and in select patients with thickness between 0.8 and 1 mm, yet admit a lack of consistent clarity in its utility for prognosis and therapeutic value in tumors < 1 mm and leave the decision for undergoing the procedure up to the patient and treating physician. Recent studies have evaluated specific patient populations, tumor histopathologic characteristics, and gene expression profiling and their use in predicting SLN positivity. These data have given insight into improving the physician's ability to potentially predict SLN positivity, shedding light on if and when omission of SLN biopsy in specific patients based on clinicopathological characteristics might be appropriate. This review provides discussion and insight into these recent advancements.

Ultrasound-Mediated Microbubble Destruction Inhibits Skin Melanoma Growth by Affecting YAP1 Translation Using Ribosome Imprinting Sequencing

Cutaneous melanoma (CMM) is a skin tumor with a high degree of malignancy. BRAF resistance imposes great difficulty to the treatment of CMM, and partially contributes to the poor prognosis of CMM. YAP is involved in the growth and drug resistance of a variety of tumors, and mechanical signals may affect the activation of YAP1. As a novel ultrasound treatment technology, ultrasound-mediated microbubble destruction (UMMD) has been reported to have a killing effect on isolated CMM cells. In this study, the tumor tissue samples were collected from 64 CMM patients. We found that YAP1 mRNA expression was irrelevant to the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic survival of the CMM patients. The drug-resistant cell line was constructed and subcutaneously implanted into nude mice, which were further separately treated with UMMD, ultrasound (US), and microbubbles (MB). The result showed that UMMD significantly inhibited the growth of tumor tissues. Ribosome imprinting sequencing (Ribo-seq) is a genetic technology for studying protein translation at genetic level. Ribo-seq, RNA-seq, and RT-qPCR were applied to detect YAP1 expression in CMM mouse tumor tissues. Ribo-seq data revealed that UMMD greatly up-regulated the expression of YAP1, interestingly, the up-regulated YAP1 was found to be negatively correlated with the weight of tumor tissues, while no significant change in YAP1 expression was detected by RNA-seq or RT-qPCR assay. These results indicated that UMMD could inhibit the tumor growth of drug-resistant CMM by affecting the translation efficiency of YAP1, providing a strong basis for the clinical treatment of UMMD in CMM.

Picomets: Assessing single and few cell metastases in melanoma sentinel lymph node biopsies

BACKGROUND

Lymph node involvement is a significant prognostic factor for melanoma. Both number of positive nodes and disease burden within a lymph node affects survival. However, the significance of few tumor cells within a single node and subsequent optimal management remains without consensus. We investigated the implications of minimal nodal disease on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 752 patients who underwent lymph node sampling at time of primary melanoma resection at our institution over 15 years. We deemed patients who had 1 node with 1 to 4 atypical cells staining positive for either Melan-A or Sox-10 as having "picomets." We examined the initial clinicopathological features, subsequent management, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (4%) met criteria for having picomets. The most common number of positively staining atypical cells was 1 (n = 13). Nodal staging at initial pathology review varied, and overall stage ranged from IA to IIIC. Four patients underwent further therapy, none of whom had recurrent disease. Of the 29 patients undergoing observation/surveillance only, 5 had disease recurrence (17%).

CONCLUSION

Although patients with picomets had better outcomes than historical stage matched cohorts, a small subset had recurrent disease. Staging patients with picomets as "N0" may not reflect the true negative prognostic significance of picomets. A larger population of patients meeting picomets criteria is needed to draw further conclusions.

Long-Term Outcomes in a Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Evaluating the Prognostic 31-Gene Expression Profile for Cutaneous Melanoma

PURPOSE

Current guidelines for postoperative management of patients with stage I-IIA cutaneous melanoma (CM) do not recommend routine cross-sectional imaging, yet many of these patients develop metastases. Methods that complement American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging are needed to improve identification and treatment of these patients. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test predicts metastatic risk as low (class 1) or high (class 2). Prospective analysis of CM outcomes was performed to test the hypotheses that the 31-GEP provides prognostic value for patients with stage I-III CM, and that patients with stage I-IIA melanoma and class 2 31-GEP results have metastatic risk similar to patients for whom surveillance is recommended.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two multicenter registry studies, INTEGRATE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02355574) and EXPAND (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02355587), were initiated under institutional review board approval, and 323 patients with stage I-III CM and median follow-up time of 3.2 years met inclusion criteria. Primary end points were 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The 31-GEP was significant for RFS, DMFS, and OS in a univariate analysis and was a significant, independent predictor of RFS, DMFS, and OS in a multivariable analysis. GEP class 2 results were significantly associated with lower 3-year RFS, DMFS, and OS in all patients and those with stage I-IIA disease. Patients with stage I-IIA CM and a class 2 result had recurrence, distant metastasis, and death rates similar to patients with stage IIB-III CM. Combining 31-GEP results and AJCC staging enhanced sensitivity over each approach alone.

CONCLUSION

These data provide a rationale for using the 31-GEP along with AJCC staging, and suggest that patients with stage I-IIA CM and a class 2 31-GEP signature may be candidates for more intense follow-up.

Utility of a 31-gene expression profile for predicting outcomes in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma referred for sentinel node biopsy

BACKGROUND

A 31-gene genetic expression profile (31-GEP; Class 1 = low risk, Class 2 = high risk) developed to predict outcome in cutaneous melanoma (CM) has been validated by retrospective, industry-sponsored, or small series.

METHODS

Tumor features, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) results, and outcomes were extracted from a prospective database of 383 C M patients who underwent SNB and had a 31-GEP run on their primary tumor. Groups were compared by uni- and multi-variable analysis. Relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival (RFS, DMFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Breslow thickness, T stage, and SNB positivity were significantly higher in Class 2 patients. Recurrence rates were higher for Class 2 vs Class 1 patients and highest in patients who were Class 2 and SNB positive. GEP class was predictive of RFS and DMFS and independently predicted relapse in AJCC "low risk" (stages IA-IIA) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

31-GEP adds prognostic information in CM patents undergoing SNB.

A Dermatologist's Guide to Implementation of Gene Expression Profiling in the Management of Melanoma

BACKGROUND. With the advent of effective therapeutics, melanoma mortality rates have decreased, yet incidence rates are continuing to rise, making accurate prognostication for risk of recurrence increasingly important. Gene expression profiling (GEP) is a clinically available, objective metric that can be used in conjunction with traditional clinicopathological staging to help physicians stratify risk in melanoma patients. There is a gap in guidance from the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) regarding how to utilize GEP in melanoma care. OBJECTIVE. An expert panel of 31-GEP test users sought to provide clarification of use options and a rational clinical workflow to guide appropriate application of the 31- GEP test in everyday practice. METHODS. The authors participated in an in-depth review of the literature and panel discussion regarding current limitations of melanoma risk assessment and opportunities for improvement with GEP. The panel reviewed 1) validation and clinical impact data supporting the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), 2) existing primary data and meta-analyses for 31-GEP testing in melanoma risk assessment, 3) AJCC, NCCN, and Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) data and guidelines for GEP use in melanoma risk assessment, and 4) experiences, rationales, and scenarios in which 31-GEP testing may be helpful for risk assessment. RESULTS. The 31-GEP test is useful and actionable for patient care when applied in accordance with current NCCN guidelines. Stratification of patients into low (Class 1a), intermediate (Class 1b or 2a), or high (Class 2b) risk categories can inform multidisciplinary conference discussion and can assist with determining the intensity of imaging, surveillance, and follow-up care. Patient-specific features of the disease and individual circumstances should be considered in the decision to use 31-GEP testing. CONCLUSION. The authors suggest a clinical workflow that integrates 31-GEP testing under the umbrella of current national guidelines. Application of the test in appropriate patient populations can improve risk assessment and inform clinical decision-making.

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.

Performance of Gene Expression Profile Tests for Prognosis in Patients With Localized Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The performance of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma is poorly characterized.

Objective

To systematically assess the performance of commercially available GEP tests in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I or stage II disease.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprehensive searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were conducted on December 12, 2019, for English-language studies of humans without date restrictions.

Study Selection

Two reviewers identified GEP external validation studies of patients with localized melanoma. After exclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (8%; 5 assessing DecisionDx-Melanoma and 2 assessing MelaGenix) were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted using an adaptation of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS-PF). When feasible, meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed with the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and an adaptation of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients with or without melanoma recurrence correctly classified by the GEP test as being at high or low risk.

Results

In the 7 included studies, a total of 1450 study participants contributed data (age and sex unknown). The performance of both GEP tests varied by AJCC stage. Of patients tested with DecisionDx-Melanoma, 623 had stage I disease (6 true-positive [TP], 15 false-negative, 61 false-positive, and 541 true-negative [TN] results) and 212 had stage II disease (59 TP, 13 FN, 78 FP, and 62 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, DecisionDx-Melanoma correctly classified 29% with stage I disease and 82% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 90% with stage I disease and 44% with stage II disease. Of patients tested with MelaGenix, 88 had stage I disease (7 TP, 15 FN, 15 FP, and 51 TN results) and 245 had stage II disease (59 TP, 19 FN, 95 FP, and 72 TN results). Among patients with recurrence, MelaGenix correctly classified 32% with stage I disease and 76% with stage II disease. Among patients without recurrence, the test correctly classified 77% with stage I disease and 43% with stage II disease.

Conclusions and Relevance

The prognostic ability of GEP tests among patients with localized melanoma varied by AJCC stage and appeared to be poor at correctly identifying recurrence in patients with stage I disease, suggesting limited potential for clinical utility in these patients.

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.

Risk stratification of cutaneous melanoma reveals carcinogen metabolism enrichment and immune inhibition in high-risk patients

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the most lethal form of skin cancer. Risk assessment should facilitate stratified surveillance and guide treatment selection. Here, based on the mRNA-seq data from 419 CM patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we developed a prognostic 21-gene signature to distinguish the outcomes of high- and low-risk patients, which was further validated in two external cohorts. The signature achieved a higher C-index as compared with other known biomarkers and clinical characteristics in both the TCGA and validation cohorts. Notably, in high-risk patients the expression levels of three driver genes, BRAF, NRAS, and NF1 in the MAPK pathway, were lower but exhibited a stronger positive correlation as compared with low-risk patients. Moreover, the genes involved in nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide metabolism were negatively correlated with the expression of BRAF in the high-risk group. Function analysis revealed that the upregulated genes in the high-risk group were enriched in the cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism of chemical carcinogens. Furthermore, the low-risk group had high levels of gamma delta T cells infiltration, while regulatory T cells were accumulated in the high-risk group. The present study offers a promising new prognostic signature for CM, and provides insight into the mechanisms of melanoma progression.

Risk prediction in cutaneous melanoma patients from their clinico-pathological features: superiority of clinical data over gene expression data

Risk assessment in cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients is one of the major challenges in the effective treatment of CM patients. Traditionally, clinico-pathological features such as Breslow thickness, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor staging, etc. are utilized for this purpose. However, due to advancements in technology, most of the upcoming risk prediction methods are gene-expression profile (GEP) based. In this study, we have tried to develop new GEP and clinico-pathological features-based biomarkers and assessed their prognostic strength in contrast to existing prognostic methods. We developed risk prediction models using the expression of the genes associated with different cancer-related pathways and got a maximum hazard ratio (HR) of 2.52 with p-value ~10-8 for the apoptotic pathway. Another model, based on combination of apoptotic and notch pathway genes boosted the HR to 2.57. Next, we developed models based on individual clinical features and got a maximum HR of 2.45 with p-value ~10-6 for Breslow thickness. We also developed models using the best features of clinical as well as gene-expression data and obtained a maximum HR of 3.19 with p-value ~10-9. Finally, we developed a new ensemble method using clinical variables only and got a maximum HR of 6.40 with p-value ~10-15. Based on this method, a web-based service and an android application named 'CMcrpred' is available at (https://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/cmcrpred/) and Google Play Store respectively to facilitate scientific community. This study reveals that our new ensemble method based on only clinico-pathological features overperforms methods based on GEP based profiles as well as currently used AJCC staging. It also highlights the need to explore the full potential of clinical variables for prognostication of cancer patients.

Technological advances for the detection of melanoma: Advances in molecular techniques

The growth of molecular technologies analyzing skin cells and inherited genetic variations has the potential to address current gaps in both diagnostic accuracy and prognostication in patients with melanoma or in individuals who are at risk for developing melanoma. In the second article in this continuing medical education series, novel molecular technologies are reviewed. These have been developed as adjunct tools for melanoma management and include the Pigmented Lesion Assay, myPath Melanoma, and DecisionDx-Melanoma tests, and genetic testing in patients with a strong familial melanoma history. These tests are commercially available and marketed as ancillary tools for clinical decision-making, diagnosis, and prognosis. We review fundamental principles behind each test, discuss peer-reviewed literature assessing their performance, and highlight the utility and limitations of each assay. The goal of this article is to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based foundation for clinicians regarding the management of patients with difficult pigmented lesions.

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.

Fractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy for up to five prostate cancer oligometastases: Interim outcomes of a prospective clinical trial

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can delay escalation to systemic treatment in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, large, prospective studies are still required to evaluate the efficacy of this approach in different patient groups. This is the interim analysis of a prospective, single institution study of men relapsing with up to five synchronous lesions following definitive local treatment for primary PCa. Our aim was to determine the proportion of patients not requiring treatment escalation following SBRT. In total, 199 patients were enrolled to receive fractionated SBRT (50 Gray in 10 fractions) to each visible lesion. Fourteen patients were castration resistant at enrolment. The proportion of patients not requiring treatment escalation 2 years following SBRT was 51.7% (95% CI: 44.1-59.3%). The median length of treatment escalation-free survival over the entire follow-up period was 27.1 months (95% CI; 21.8-29.4 months). Prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) predicted a significantly lower rate of freedom from treatment escalation at 2 years compared to no prior ADT (odds ratio = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.08-0.54, p = 0.001). There was no difference in the efficacy of SBRT when treating 4-5 vs. 1-3 initial lesions. A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline was induced in 75% of patients, with PSA readings falling to an undetectable level in six patients. No late grade three toxicities were observed. These interim results suggest that SBRT can be used to treat up to five synchronous PCa oligometastases to delay treatment escalation.

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.

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.

Guidance of sentinel lymph node biopsy decisions in patients with T1–T2 melanoma using gene expression profiling

Aim: Can gene expression profiling be used to identify patients with T1–T2 melanoma at low risk for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity? Patients & methods: Bioinformatics modeling determined a population in which a 31-gene expression profile test predicted <5% SLN positivity. Multicenter, prospectively-tested (n = 1421) and retrospective (n = 690) cohorts were used for validation and outcomes, respectively. Results: Patients 55–64 years and ≥65 years with a class 1A (low-risk) profile had SLN positivity rates of 4.9% and 1.6%. Class 2B (high-risk) patients had SLN positivity rates of 30.8% and 11.9%. Melanoma-specific survival was 99.3% for patients ≥55 years with class 1A, T1–T2 tumors and 55.0% for class 2B, SLN-positive, T1–T2 tumors. Conclusion: The 31-gene expression profile test identifies patients who could potentially avoid SLN biopsy.

Melanoma subtypes: genomic profiles, prognostic molecular markers and therapeutic possibilities

Melanoma is characterised by its ability to metastasise at early stages of tumour development. Current clinico-pathologic staging based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria is used to guide surveillance and management in early-stage disease, but its ability to predict clinical outcome has limitations. Herein we review the genomics of melanoma subtypes including cutaneous, acral, uveal and mucosal, with a focus on the prognostic and predictive significance of key molecular aberrations. © 2018 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

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.

Current controversies in early-stage melanoma: Questions on management and surveillance

There are a number of controversies and uncertainties relating to the management and surveillance of patients with early-stage, localized (ie, stage 0, I, and II) cutaneous melanoma. While tumor stage is a critical predictor of clinical outcome and guides treatment, accurate determination of stage may be affected by the biopsy technique used and the method of sectioning before histologic review. A new molecular prognostic test is available but has not been formally incorporated into staging or treatment guidelines. There are no randomized controlled clinical trials to support guidelines for surveillance following the treatment of early-stage melanoma. In the second article in this continuing medical education series, we review the controversies and uncertainties relating to these issues. The questions we address are controversial because they speak to clinical scenarios for which there are no evidence-based guidelines or randomized clinical trials with the consequence of considerable variability in clinical practice. Our goal is to provide the clinician with up-to-date contextual knowledge to appreciate the multiple sides of each controversy and to suggest pathways to resolution.

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.

Malignant Melanoma: Diagnostic and Management Update

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Summarize the changes to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Melanoma Staging System. 2. List advances in genetic, molecular, and histopathologic melanoma diagnosis and prognostication. 3. Recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy and appropriate surgical margins based on individualized patient needs. 4. Recognize the currently available treatments for in-transit metastasis and advanced melanoma. 5. Describe current and future therapies for melanoma with distant visceral or brain metastases.

SUMMARY

Strides in melanoma surveillance, detection, and treatment continue to be made. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging System has improved risk stratification of patients, introduced new staging categories, and resulted in stage migration of patients with improved outcomes. This review summarizes melanoma advances of the recent years with an emphasis on the surgical advances, including techniques and utility of sentinel node biopsy, controversies in melanoma margin selection, and the survival impact of time-to-treatment metrics. Once a disease manageable only with surgery, a therapeutic paradigm shift has given a more promising outlook to melanoma patients at any stage. Indeed, a myriad of novel, survival-improving immunotherapies have been introduced for metastatic melanoma and more recently in the high-risk adjuvant setting.

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.

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.

Guidelines of care for the management of primary cutaneous melanoma

The incidence of primary cutaneous melanoma continues to increase each year. Melanoma accounts for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths, but treatment is usually curative following early detection of disease. In this American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guideline, updated treatment recommendations are provided for patients with primary cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages 0-IIC and pathologic stage III by virtue of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy). Biopsy techniques for a lesion that is clinically suggestive of melanoma are reviewed, as are recommendations for the histopathologic interpretation of cutaneous melanoma. The use of laboratory, molecular, and imaging tests is examined in the initial work-up of patients with newly diagnosed melanoma and for follow-up of asymptomatic patients. With regard to treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma, recommendations for surgical margins and the concepts of staged excision (including Mohs micrographic surgery) and nonsurgical treatments for melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna type (including topical imiquimod and radiation therapy), are updated. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy as a staging technique for cutaneous melanoma is described, with recommendations for its use in clinical practice. Finally, current data regarding pregnancy and melanoma, genetic testing for familial melanoma, and management of dermatologic toxicities related to novel targeted agents and immunotherapies for patients with advanced disease are summarized.

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.

Update on systemic therapy for advanced cutaneous melanoma and recent development of novel drugs

Malignant melanoma is generally chemo- and radio-resistant, and patients with advanced melanoma have a poor prognosis. However, with our increased understanding of the checkpoint immune molecules and genetic alterations of melanoma cells, more effective immunotherapy, such as anti CTLA4 antibody and anti PD-1 antibodies, and targeted drug therapy, such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors, have been developed, resulting in improved overall survival and quality of life of patients with advanced melanoma. In addition, emerging technologies to develop prognostic and predictive biomarkers for response to systemic therapy could help clinicians make more accurate assessments of the disease and formulate more effective treatment plans. In this review, current standard systemic therapy options and recently developed novel drugs for advanced melanoma are discussed.

The host response as a tool for infectious disease diagnosis and management

INTRODUCTION

A century of advances in infectious disease diagnosis and treatment changed the face of medicine. However, challenges continue to develop including multi-drug resistance, globalization that increases pandemic risks, and high mortality from severe infections. These challenges can be mitigated through improved diagnostics, and over the past decade, there has been a particular focus on the host response. Since this article was originally published in 2015, there have been significant developments in the field of host response diagnostics, warranting this updated review. Areas Covered: This review begins by discussing developments in single biomarkers and pauci-analyte biomarker panels. It then delves into 'omics, an area where there has been truly exciting progress. Specifically, progress has been made in sepsis diagnosis and prognosis; differentiating viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogen classes; pre-symptomatic diagnosis; and understanding disease-specific diagnostic challenges in tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and Ebola. Expert Commentary: As 'omics have become faster, more precise, and less expensive, the door has been opened for academic, industry, and government efforts to develop host-based infectious disease classifiers. While there are still obstacles to overcome, the chasm separating these scientific advances from the patient's bedside is shrinking.

Review of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in melanoma

Melanoma is an aggressive cutaneous malignancy with rapidly rising incidence. Diagnosis of controversial melanocytic lesions, correct prognostication of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to a given therapy remain very real challenges. Despite these challenges, multiple high throughput, nucleic-acid based biomarkers have been developed that can be assayed from histologic tissue specimens. FISH, CGH, Decision-Dx, and other multi-marker assays have been combined to improve overall predictability. This review discusses some of the most promising nucleic acid based assays that can be obtained from tissue specimens to assist with diagnosis, prognostication, and prediction of treatment response.