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

Clinical, dermatoscopic, histological and molecular predictive factors of distant melanoma metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Melanoma metastasis to distant sites is associated with diminished survival rates and poor prognosis. Except of Breslow thickness and ulceration that are currently used in melanoma staging, the investigation of additional clinicopathological, dermatoscopic and molecular factors that could predict tumors with aggressive biologic behavior is of paramount importance.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases and gray literature until November 2023. Observational studies (including cohorts and case-control studies) were included and clinical and histopathological factors of primary cutaneous melanomas, along with dermatoscopic and molecular predictors of distant metastasis (DM) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed. Random - effect models were preferred, the results were presented as Hazard Ratios (HRs) with 95 %Confidence Intervals (CIs) and the I2 index quantified heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis according to AJCC stage and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-three and 101 studies were included in the qualitive and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Regarding clinical factors, males, compared to females, and head and neck location, compared to trunk, demonstrated higher risk for DM [n=36, HR 1.49, 95%CI 1.36 - 1.63, I2 33% and n=21, HR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.01 - 1.52, I2 62 %]. Both factors had similar effects on DMFS. Breslow thickness and ulceration were significant predictors or DM. Additional factors that posed an increased risk for DM were nodular (n=15, HR 2.51, 95 %CI 1.83 - 3.43, I2 56 %) and lentigo maligna subtypes (n=12, HR 1.87, 95 %CI 1.27 - 2.75, I2 0 %), compared to superficial spreading subtype, lymphovascular invasion (n=9, HR 2.05, 95 %CI 1.18 - 3.58, I2 78 %), SLN positivity and BRAF+ mutational status. In contrast, regression was a negative predictor of DM (n=15, HR 0.59, 95 %CI 0.44 - 0.79, I2 68 %). Two studies focused on dermatoscopic factors and found that low pigmentation and the presence of blue-white veil might predict DM development. The results of subgroup analysis for stage I-II patients were essentially similar and sensitivity analysis did not reveal significant alterations, despite the moderate or high heterogeneity in some categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and histological characteristics of the tumor along with dermatoscopic features and molecular parameters hold significant prognostic information and could be incorporated into models to predict melanomas with high metastatic potential.

Management of melanoma: can we use gene expression profiling to help guide treatment and surveillance?

Although the incidence of cutaneous melanoma (CM) has been increasing annually, the mortality rate has been decreasing, likely due to better prevention, earlier detection, improved surveillance, and the development of new therapies. Current clinical management guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are based on patient risk assignment using staging criteria established by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). However, some patients with localized disease (stage I-II), generally considered to have a good prognosis, will develop metastatic disease and die, whereas some patients with later stage disease (stage III-IV) will be cured by surgery, adjuvant therapy, and/or systemic therapy. These results emphasize the importance of identifying patients whose risk may be over or underestimated with standard staging. Gene expression profile (GEP) tests are noninvasive molecular tests that assess the expression levels of a panel of validated genes, providing information about tumor prognosis, including the risk of recurrence, metastasis, and cancer-specific death. GEP tests can provide prognostic information beyond standard staging that may aid clinicians and patients in treatment and surveillance management decisions. This review describes how combining clinicopathologic staging with a robust assessment of tumor biology may provide information that will allow more refined intervention and long-term management.

Sentinel lymph node risk prognostication in primary cutaneous melanoma through tissue-based profiling, potentially redefining the need for sentinel lymph node biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) is pivotal in the contemporary staging of cutaneous melanoma. In this review, we examine advanced molecular testing platforms like gene expression profiling (GEP) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) as tools for predicting the prognosis of sentinel lymph nodes. We compare these innovative approaches with traditional staging assessments. Additionally, we delve into the shared genetic and protein markers between GEP and IHC tests and their relevance to melanoma biology, exploring their prognostic and predictive characteristics. Finally, we assess alternative methods to potentially obviate the need for SLNB altogether.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress in adjuvant melanoma therapy has diminished the necessity of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) while underscoring the importance of accurately identifying high-risk stage I and II melanoma patients who may benefit from additional anti-tumor interventions. The clinical application of testing through gene expression profiling (GEP) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) is gaining traction, with platforms such as DecisionDx, Merlin Assay (CP-GEP), MelaGenix GEP, and Immunoprint coming into play. Currently, extensive validation studies are in progress to incorporate routine molecular testing into clinical practice. However, due to significant methodological limitations, widespread clinical adoption of tissue-based molecular testing remains elusive at present.

SUMMARY

While various tissue-based molecular testing platforms have the potential to stratify the risk of sentinel lymph node positivity (SLNP), most suffer from significant methodological deficiencies, including limited sample size, lack of prospective validation, and limited correlation with established clinicopathological variables. Furthermore, the genes and proteins identified by individual gene expression profiling (GEP) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests exhibit minimal overlap, even when considering the most well-established melanoma mutations. However, there is hope that the ongoing prospective trial for the Merlin Assay may safely reduce the necessity for SLNB procedures if successful. Additionally, the MelaGenix GEP and Immunoprint tests could prove valuable in identifying high-risk stage I-II melanoma patients and potentially guiding their selection for adjuvant therapy, thus potentially reducing the need for SLNB. Due to the diverse study designs employed, effective comparisons between GEP or IHC tests are challenging, and to date, there is no study directly comparing the clinical utility of these respective GEP or IHC tests.

The Use of Gene Expression Profiling and Biomarkers in Melanoma Diagnosis and Predicting Recurrence: Implications for Surveillance and Treatment

Cutaneous melanoma is becoming more prevalent in the United States and has the highest mortality among cutaneous malignancies. The majority of melanomas are diagnosed at an early stage and, as such, survival is generally favorable. However, there remains prognostic uncertainty among subsets of early- and intermediate-stage melanoma patients, some of whom go on to develop advanced disease while others remain disease-free. Melanoma gene expression profiling (GEP) has evolved with the notion to help bridge this gap and identify higher- or lower-risk patients to better tailor treatment and surveillance protocols. These tests seek to prognosticate melanomas independently of established AJCC 8 cancer staging and clinicopathologic features (sex, age, primary tumor location, thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, microsatellites, and/or SLNB status). While there is a significant opportunity to improve the accuracy of melanoma prognostication and diagnosis, it is equally important to understand the current landscape of molecular profiling for melanoma treatment. Society guidelines currently do not recommend molecular testing outside of clinical trials for melanoma clinical decision making, citing insufficient high-quality evidence guiding indications for the testing and interpretation of results. The goal of this chapter is to review the available literature for GEP testing for melanoma diagnosis and prognostication and understand their place in current treatment paradigms.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Advances in melanoma: epidemiology, diagnosis, and prognosis

Unraveling the multidimensional complexities of melanoma has required concerted efforts by dedicated community of researchers and clinicians battling against this deadly form of skin cancer. Remarkable advances have been made in the realm of epidemiology, classification, diagnosis, and therapy of melanoma. The treatment of advanced melanomas has entered the golden era as targeted personalized therapies have emerged that have significantly altered the mortality rate. A paradigm shift in the approach to melanoma classification, diagnosis, prognosis, and staging is underway, fueled by discoveries of genetic alterations in melanocytic neoplasms. A morphologic clinicopathologic classification of melanoma is expected to be replaced by a more precise molecular based one. As validated, convenient, and cost-effective molecular-based tests emerge, molecular diagnostics will play a greater role in the clinical and histologic diagnosis of melanoma. Artificial intelligence augmented clinical and histologic diagnosis of melanoma is expected to make the process more streamlined and efficient. A more accurate model of prognosis and staging of melanoma is emerging based on molecular understanding melanoma. This contribution summarizes the recent advances in melanoma epidemiology, classification, diagnosis, and prognosis.

Clinical Utility of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants

Objective

The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) can predict the risk of recurrence and metastasis in cutaneous melanoma (CM). We assessed the viewpoints and use of 31-GEP testing by physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) for patients with CM.

Methods

NPs and PAs (n = 369) completed an 18-question online survey about their viewpoints and use of the 31-GEP risk-stratification test.

Results

Most practitioners (n = 334, 90.5%) felt prognostic testing improved patient care and would recommend the 31-GEP to a colleague (n = 333, 90.2%) or a friend or family member (n = 289, 78.3%) who was diagnosed with CM. The 31-GEP test was used by 176 respondents in the preceding 12 months (53%). Among users of the 31-GEP test, 78% stated that the results would impact follow-up schedule and referral, 66% overall treatment decisions, 62% sentinel lymph node biopsy recommendations, and 50% surveillance imaging. In thin tumors (≤ 1 mm), 82% of 31-GEP users and 44% of nonusers stated that the 31-GEP results would impact their treatment plan decisions.

Conclusion

The 31-GEP test significantly impacts treatment plans in CM, particularly for thin and stage I melanomas. Importantly, even nonusers stated that 31-GEP test results would impact treatment plans as well as recommendations to a friend or family member.

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.

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.

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.

Prognostic biomarkers of cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Melanomas account for only approximately 4% of diagnosed skin cancers in the United States but are responsible for the majority of deaths caused by skin cancer. Both genetic factors and ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure play a role in the development of melanoma. Although melanomas have a strong propensity to metastasize when diagnosed late, melanomas that are diagnosed and treated early pose a low mortality risk. In particular, the identification of patients with increased metastatic risk, who may benefit from early adjuvant therapies, is crucial, especially given the advent of new melanoma treatments. However, the accuracy of classic clinical and histological variables, including the Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, and lymph node status, might not be sufficient to identify such individuals. Thus, there is a need for the development of additional prognostic melanoma biomarkers that can improve early attempts to stratify melanoma patients and reliably identify high-risk subgroups with the aim of providing effective personalized therapies.

METHODS

In our current work, we discuss and assess emerging primary melanoma tumor biomarkers and prognostic circulating biomarkers.

RESULTS

Several promising biomarkers show prognostic value (eg, exosomal MIA (ie, melanoma inhibitory activity), serum S100B, AMLo signatures, and mRNA signatures); however, the scarcity of reliable data precludes the use of these biomarkers in current clinical applications.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed on several promising biomarkers for melanoma. Large-scale studies are warranted to facilitate the clinical translation of prognostic biomarker applications for melanoma in personalized medicine.

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.

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.

Using a 31-Gene Expression Profile Test to Stratify Patients with Stage I-II Cutaneous Melanoma According to Recurrence Risk: Update to a Prospective, Multicenter Study

Simple Summary

Many people with skin cancer will have their cancer come back. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test can help predict if a cancer has a low (Class 1) or high (Class 2) chance of returning. This study looked at 86 patients with early skin cancer to see how well the 31-GEP test predicted if their cancer would return. None of the patients with a Class 1 GEP result had their cancer return within 3 years, but one-fourth of patients with a Class 2 result did. This study showed that the 31-GEP test can help predict if a patient’s skin cancer will return. Accurate risk prediction can help doctors make better treatment plans for patients with skin cancer.

Abstract

Background: Fifteen to forty percent of patients with localized cutaneous melanoma (CM) (stages I–II) will experience disease relapse. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) uses gene expression data from the primary tumor in conjunction with clinicopathologic features to refine patient prognosis. The study’s objective was to evaluate 31-GEP risk stratification for disease-free survival (DFS) in a previously published cohort with longer follow-up. Methods: Patients with stage IB–II CM (n = 86) were prospectively tested with the 31-GEP. Follow-up time increased from 2.2 to 3.9 years. Patient outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results: A Class 2B result was a significant predictor of 3-year DFS (hazard ratio (HR) 8.4, p = 0.008) in univariate analysis. The 31-GEP significantly stratified patients by risk of relapse (p = 0.005). A Class 2B result was associated with a lower 3-year DFS (75.0%) than a Class 1A result (100%). The 31-GEP had a high sensitivity (77.8%) and negative predictive value (95.0%). Conclusions: The 31-GEP is a significant predictor of disease relapse in patients with stage IB–II melanoma and accurately stratified patients by risk of relapse.

Role of Biomarkers in the Integrated Management of Melanoma

Melanoma, which is an aggressive skin cancer, is currently the fifth and seventh most common cancer in men and women, respectively. The American Cancer Society reported that approximately 106,110 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the United States in 2021, with 7,180 people dying from the disease. This information could facilitate the early detection of possible metastatic lesions and the development of novel therapeutic techniques for melanoma. Additionally, early detection of malignant melanoma remains an objective of melanoma research. Recently, melanoma treatment has substantially improved, given the availability of targeted treatments and immunotherapy. These developments have highlighted the significance of identifying biomarkers for prognosis and predicting therapy response. Biomarkers included tissue protein expression, circulating DNA detection, and genetic alterations in cancer cells. Improved diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are becoming increasingly relevant in melanoma treatment, with the development of newer and more targeted treatments. Here, the author discusses the aspects of biomarkers in the real-time management of patients with melanoma.

Management of Transected Invasive Melanoma: A Single Institution Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Deep transection of invasive melanoma precludes accurate measurement of Breslow depth, which may affect tumor staging.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of upstaging of transected invasive melanomas after excision, characterize the impact on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN)-recommended treatment, and determine predictors of subsequent upstaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of invasive melanomas between January 2017 and December 2019 at a single institution. Deeply transected biopsy reports were compared with subsequent excisions to calculate the frequency of upstaging.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty (49.6%) of 726 invasive melanomas identified were transected. Forty-nine (13.6%) transected tumors had upstaging that would have altered NCCN-recommended management. "Broadly" transected tumors had upstaging that would have resulted in a change in the management in 5/23 cases (21.7%) versus 2/41 cases (4.9%) for "focally" transected tumors (p = .038). Breslow depth increased by 0.59 mm on average for "broad" transection versus 0.06 mm for "focal" transection (p =< .01). Of the 89 transected pT1a melanomas, specimens with gross residual tumor or pigment after biopsy were upstaged in 8/17 (47.1%) of cases versus 5/72 (6.9%) of specimens without (p =< .01).

CONCLUSION

Upstaging of deeply transected invasive melanomas that would alter NCCN-recommended management occurred in 13.6% of cases. Broad transection and gross residual tumor or pigment after biopsy predicted higher likelihood of upstaging.

Prognostic Biomarkers in Melanoma: Tailoring Treatments to the Patient

BACKGROUND

It is often difficult to accurately predict how a melanoma will progress because melanomas can be so diverse in their genetic and histological makeup.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize the current state and progression of biomedical markers towards their utilization as prognostic indicators for patients with melanoma.

METHODS

A literature search of the research repository databases PubMed and GoogleScholar was conducted using the following inclusion criteria: (1) published within the last 10 years, and (2) use of overall survival, disease progression, or clinical outcome as primary endpoints. Search terms included various permutations of "biomarkers," "prognostic," "immunologic," "serologic," "visual," and "melanoma." Results were evaluated for statistical power, results significance, and experimental design integrity.

RESULTS

The prognostic capabilities of clinical tests for malignant melanoma have made great strides in the last few years, with several serologic and immunohistochemical biomarkers being preliminarily linked to various measures of clinical prognosis. While clinical feasibility of a single sensitive and specific biomarker remains unfeasible, use of select combinations of tested biomarkers remain viable.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic and prognostic genetic assays have begun to cross over from research to commercial application, giving physicians additional tools during the early stages of diagnosis to optimize and individualize treatments.

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.

Adjuvant therapy for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: 10-year review

Standard of care for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is surgical excision of the primary lesion with clear margins when possible, and additional resection of positive margins when feasible. Even with negative margins, certain high-risk factors warrant consideration of adjuvant therapy. However, which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy is unclear, and supporting evidence is conflicting and limited to mostly small retrospective cohorts. Here, we review literature from the last decade regarding adjuvant radiation therapy and systemic therapy in high-risk cSCC, including recent and current trials and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We demonstrate evidence gaps in adjuvant therapy for high-risk cSCC and the need for prognostic tools, such as gene expression profiling, to guide patient selection. More large-cohort clinical studies are needed for collecting high-quality, evidence-based data for determining which patients with high-risk cSCC may benefit from adjuvant therapy and which therapy is most appropriate for patient management.

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.

The genetic and epigenetic basis of distinct melanoma types

Melanoma represents the deadliest skin cancer. Recent therapeutic developments, including targeted and immune therapies have revolutionized clinical management and improved patient outcome. This progress was achieved by rigorous molecular and functional studies followed by robust clinical trials. The identification of key genomic alterations and gene expression profiles have propelled the understanding of distinct characteristics within melanoma subtypes. The aim of this review is to summarize and highlight the main genetic and epigenetic findings of melanomas and highlight their pathological and therapeutic importance.

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.

Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects

Despite significant progress in the development of treatment options, melanoma remains a leading cause of death due to skin cancer. Advances in our understanding of the genetic, transcriptomic, and morphologic spectrum of benign and malignant melanocytic neoplasia have enabled the field to propose biomarkers with potential diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive value. While these proposed biomarkers have the potential to improve clinical decision making at multiple critical intervention points, most remain unvalidated. Clinical validation of even the most commonly assessed biomarkers will require substantial resources, including limited clinical specimens. It is therefore important to consider the properties that constitute a relevant and clinically-useful biomarker-based test prior to engaging in large validation studies. In this review article we adapt an established framework for determining minimally-useful biomarker test characteristics, and apply this framework to a discussion of currently used and proposed biomarkers designed to aid melanoma detection, staging, prognosis, and choice of treatment.

Treatment of Cutaneous Melanoma of the Head and Neck With Wide Local Excision Versus Mohs

OBJECTIVES

Determine if Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is associated with improved overall survival compared to wide local excision (WLE) when treating cutaneous melanoma of the head and neck (CMHN) and to report the proportion of patients treated with MMS versus WLE who also underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) analyzing the overall survival of patients diagnosed with T1 to T4 CMHN between 2004 and 2016 who were treated with either WLE or MMS.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, treatment with WLE versus MMS was not significantly associated with overall survival (HR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.997-1.201). On multivariable analysis, lower Charlson-Deyo score (HR, 0.489; 95% CI, 0.427-0.560), negative margins (HR, 0.754; 95% CI, 0.705-0.807), and N0 classification (HR 0.698; 95% CI, 0.668-0.730) were associated with improved overall survival. Seventy-seven percent of patients treated with MMS did not undergo SLNB, while 45% of patients treated with WLE did not undergo SLNB (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in overall survival between MMS and WLE when treating CMHN. Patients treated with MMS were significantly less likely to undergo SLNB, suggesting an opportunity for enhancement of multidisciplinary care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

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.

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.

Prognostic significance of an 11-gene RNA assay in archival tissue of cutaneous melanoma stage I-III patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to validate the results of an 11-gene expression profiling (GEP) assay which aims to improve the precision of individual prognosis beyond conventional American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for patients with cutaneous melanoma.

METHODS

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test of 11 prospectively selected genes was performed on 291 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded primary tumours of patients with stage I-III cutaneous melanoma. The expression levels of eight prognostic and three reference genes were used in a predefined algorithm to calculate a numerical score (-0.84 to 3.53) and then assign each patient to a preselected risk group (low versus high score) for melanoma-specific survival (MSS).

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients were allocated to the low-score group, with a corresponding five-year disease-free survival (DFS) and MSS of 95% and 99%, respectively. 164 patients were allocated to the high-score group, with a corresponding five-year DFS and MSS of 78% and 88%. Continuous regression analysis demonstrated decreasing MSS probabilities with increasing scores. In a multivariate cox regression, only the 11-GEP, tumour thickness and age were statistically associated with MSS (p = 0.0068, 0.002 and 0.0159).

CONCLUSIONS

The 11-GEP has been validated as an independent predictor of outcome for melanoma patients. More specifically, using an 11-GEP score cut-off of ≤0, the assay can identify patient cohorts with 10-year survival probabilities well above 90%. This information may be used in the decision-making for a potential adjuvant therapy.

Characterization of Sentinel Lymph Node Immune Signatures and Implications for Risk Stratification for Adjuvant Therapy in Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a standard procedure used to identify patients at risk for melanoma recurrence, it fails to risk-stratify certain patients accurately. Because processes in SLNs regulate anti-tumor immune responses, the authors hypothesized that SLN gene expression may be used for risk stratification.

METHODS

The Nanostring nCounter PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel was used to quantify expression of 730 immune-related genes in 60 SLN specimens (31 positive [pSLNs], 29 negative [nSLNs]) from a retrospective melanoma cohort. A multivariate prediction model for recurrence-free survival (RFS) was created by applying stepwise variable selection to Cox regression models. Risk scores calculated on the basis of the model were used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups. The predictive power of the model was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 6.3 years, 20 patients (33.3%) experienced recurrence (pSLN, 45.2% [14/31] vs nSLN, 20.7% [6/29]; p = 0.0445). A fitted Cox regression model incorporating 12 genes accurately predicted RFS (C-index, 0.9919). Improved RFS was associated with increased expression of TIGIT (p = 0.0326), an immune checkpoint, and decreased expression of CXCL16 (p = 0.0273), a cytokine important in promoting dendritic and T cell interactions. Independent of SLN status, the model in this study was able to stratify patients into cohorts at high and low risk for recurrence (p < 0.001, log-rank).

CONCLUSIONS

Expression profiles of the SLN gene are associated with melanoma recurrence and may be able to identify patients as high or low risk regardless of SLN status, potentially enhancing patient selection for adjuvant therapy.

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.

Recurrence patterns in patients with Stage II melanoma: The evolving role of routine imaging for surveillance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The relatively recent availability of effective systemic therapies for metastatic melanoma necessitates reconsideration of current surveillance patterns. Evidence supporting surveillance guidelines for resected Stage II melanoma is lacking. Prior reports note routine imaging detects only 21% of recurrent disease. This study aims to define recurrence patterns for Stage II melanoma to inform future surveillance guidelines.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients with Stage II melanoma. We analyzed risk factors for recurrence and methods of recurrence detection. We also assessed survival. Yearly hazards of recurrence were visualized.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 158 per 580 patients (27.2%) recurred. Overall, most recurrences were patient-detected (60.7%) or imaging-detected (27.3%). Routine imaging was important in detecting recurrence in patients with distant recurrences (adjusted rate 43.1% vs. 9.4% for local/in-transit; p = .04) and with Stage IIC melanoma (42.5% vs. 18.5% for IIA; p = .01). Male patients also self-detected recurrent disease less than females (52.1% vs. 76.8%; p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine imaging surveillance played a larger role in detecting recurrent disease for select groups in this cohort than noted in prior studies. In an era of effective systemic therapy, routine imaging should be considered for detection of asymptomatic relapse for select, high-risk patient groups.

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.

Integration of a 31-Gene Expression Profile Into Clinical Decision-Making in the Treatment of Cutaneous Melanoma

BACKGROUND

The practice of utilizing gene expression profile (GEP) for the evaluation and treatment of cutaneous melanomas has been found to predict the risk of sentinel-node metastasis and recurrence. Information obtained from this assay has been used to determine clinical decision-making, including serving as an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy and also for the intensity of screening measures.

METHODS

Herein we present our early experience in utilizing 31-GEP in intermediate melanomas and its effect on clinical management. A retrospective review was conducted of patients who had undergone treatment for melanoma whose tumors had been subjected to 31-GEP. Additionally, patient characteristics, attributes of the original tumor biopsied, findings on final pathology, and procedures performed were evaluated.

RESULTS

31-GEP stratified patients into 4 groups; groups 1A and 1B are considered low risk of metastasis or recurrence, while 2A and 2B are considered high risk. Over the study period, 31-GEP was conducted on 26 cutaneous melanoma patients. Testing and treatment data are available for 23 of these patients. Eleven patients were found to be low risk (9 as 1A, 2 as 1B), 12 were found to be high risk (4 as 2A, 8 as 2B). Decision-making was altered such that sentinel lymph node biopsy was omitted in 2 cases in which the patients were found to be low risk with age >65 years.

DISCUSSION

In 8 cases of node-negative disease in genetically high-risk patients, surveillance measures were augmented with positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Utilization of 31-GEP is ongoing at our institution.

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.

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.

Prognostic gene expression profiling in melanoma: necessary steps to incorporate into clinical practice

Prognostic gene expression profiling (GEP) tests for cutaneous melanoma (CM) are not recommended in current guidelines outside of a clinical trial. However, their use is becoming more prevalent and some practitioners are using GEP tests to guide patient management. Thus, there is an urgent need to bridge this gap between test usage and clinical guideline recommendations by obtaining high-quality evidence to guide us toward best practice use of GEP testing in CM patients. We focus here on the opportunities and uncertainties associated with prognostic GEP testing in CM, review how GEP testing was incorporated into clinical care guidelines for uveal melanoma and breast cancer and discuss the role of clinical trials to determine best use in patients with CM.