Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with increased cost in higher risk thin melanoma

BAUSSS biomarker improves melanoma survival risk assessment

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) method of staging melanoma is dated and inaccurate. It ignores important prognostic melanoma features, especially the patient's age. BAUSSS is more accurate in determining survival risk for primary cutaneous melanoma patients who have no clinical or imaging evidence of nodal or distant metastases. BAUSSS is an algorithm incorporating analysis of Breslow thickness, Age, Ulceration, Subtype of melanoma, Sex and Site. These are the six features from the patient history along with the details from the melanoma pathology report that are most predictive of mortality outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a single-page document that allows the clinician to determine BAUSSS biomarker-predicted prognosis in consultation with the patient.

METHOD

From various data sources, we developed an algorithm to predict melanoma mortality using the BAUSSS biomarker system. The single-page algorithm was made available to download at https://globalmelanoma.net/bausss-survival-chart, thus being readily available without charge to all clinicians and their patients.

RESULTS

BAUSSS method of determining melanoma prognosis is more accurate and less costly than the AJCC staging system. The only surgery the patient requires is wide local excision of the primary tumour. This method of ascertaining melanoma risk does not require added surgery, costs, hospitalization, tests and anaesthesia, such as would be required if sentinel lymph node biopsy was undertaken. BAUSSS can be a useful tool in determining which primary melanoma patients are at sufficiently high risk to be considered for adjuvant drug therapy.

CONCLUSION

We encourage clinicians to download and print in colour this single-page BAUSSS mortality prediction tool, laminate it, and use it face to face with the patient in consultations. Not only will the patient be able to recognize his/her long-term prognosis but will also be able to see how their tumour severity compares with others.

Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with clinical and pathologic features can provide personalized precision estimates for sentinel lymph node positivity: an independent performance cohort

INTRODUCTION

Up to 88% of sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNBs) are negative. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test can help identify patients with a low risk of SLN metastasis who can safely forego SLNB. The 31-GEP classifies patients as low (Class 1 A), intermediate (Class 1B/2A), or high risk (Class 2B) for recurrence, metastasis, and SLN positivity. The integrated 31-GEP (i31-GEP) combines the 31-GEP risk score with clinicopathologic features using a neural network algorithm to personalize SLN risk prediction.

METHODS

Patients from a single surgical center with 31-GEP results were included (n = 156). An i31-GEP risk prediction < 5% was considered low risk of SLN positivity. Chi-square was used to compare SLN positivity rates between groups.

RESULTS

Patients considered low risk by the i31-GEP had a 0% (0/30) SLN positivity rate compared to a 31.9% (30/94, p < 0.001) positivity rate in those with > 10% risk. Using the i31-GEP to guide SLNB decisions could have significantly reduced the number of unnecessary SLNBs by 19.2% (30/156, p < 0.001) for all patients and 33.0% (30/91, p < 0.001) for T1-T2 tumors. Patients with T1-T2 tumors and an i31-GEP-predicted SLN positivity risk > 10% had a similar SLN positivity rate (33.3%) as patients with T3-T4 tumors (31.3%).

CONCLUSION

The i31-GEP identified patients with < 5% risk of SLN positivity who could safely forego SLNB. Combining the 31-GEP with clinicopathologic features for a precise risk estimate can help guide risk-aligned patient care decisions for SLNB to reduce the number of unnecessary SLNBs and increase the SLNB positivity yield if the procedure is performed.

The 31-gene expression profile test informs sentinel lymph node biopsy decisions in patients with cutaneous melanoma: results of a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The 31-gene expression profile test (Class 1A: low-risk; 1B/2A: intermediate-risk; 2B: high-risk) is validated to identify patients with cutaneous melanoma who can safely forego sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The objective of the current study is to quantify SLNB reduction by clinicians using 31-GEP.

METHODS

Patients with T1-T2 tumors eligible for SLNB were seen by surgical oncologists (89.1%), dermatologists (7.8%), and medical oncologists (3.1%). After receiving 31-GEP results but before SLNB, clinicians were asked which clinical and pathological features influenced SLNB decisions (n = 191). The Exact binomial test was used to compare SLNB procedure rates to a contemporary study (78% SLNB baseline rate). Logistic regression modeling (odds ratio [OR], 95% CI) was used to identify features associated with SLNB procedure rates.

RESULTS

One hundred clinical decisions (52.4%) were influenced by the 31-GEP to forego SLNB and 70% (70/100) were not performed. Of the 30 performed, 0% (0/30) were positive. The 31-GEP influenced sixty-three clinical decisions (33.0%) to perform SLNB, and 92.1% (58/63) were performed. There was a clinically meaningful 29.4% reduction of SLNBs performed in patients with a Class 1A result relative to the baseline rate of 78.0% (p < .01). In patients ≥55 or ≥65-year-old, SLNB reduction was 32.3% (p < .01), 28.3% (p < .01), respectively. Overall, 85.3% of decisions relating to SLNB were influenced by 31-GEP results.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, multicenter study, clinicians demonstrated clinically meaningful use of the 31-GEP test to forego or pursue SLNB in patients with T1-T2 tumors resulting in a significant, risk appropriate decrease in SLNBs.

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.