The prognostic significance of sentinel node tumour burden in melanoma patients: an international, multicenter study of 1539 sentinel node-positive melanoma patients

Complete lymph node dissection in cutaneous melanoma patients with positive sentinel lymph node: Outcome and predictors in a retrospective cohort study over 16 years

BACKGROUND

In melanoma treatment, complete lymph node dissection (CLND) has been considered the therapeutic gold standard in patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). This long-held approach was revised in 2017, with recent evidence questioning the therapeutic benefit of CLND in malignant melanoma (MM) therapy. In this study, we aimed to fill this knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing the impact of CLND on MM patients' survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the multi-center population-based Clinical Cancer Registry at the Tumor Center Regensburg (TUDOK) database (2004-2020) to identify patients who had been diagnosed with SLN-positive MM and underwent (non)invasive management thereof. Patient cohorts were subdivided according to the treatment received (CLND and waiving CLND). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cumulative recurrence rate.

RESULTS

We identified 1143 MM patients, of whom 126 (11.0%) had positive SLN status. CLND was waived in the majority of SLN-positive MM cases (n = 71; 56.3%), with 55 (43.7%) patients undergoing CLND. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant advantage for CLND patients compared to non-CLND patients in OS (HR=0.970, p = 0.915 and HR=1.295, p = 0.479, respectively), RFS (HR=1.050, p = 0.849 and HR=1.220, p = 0.544, respectively), and cumulative recurrence rate (HR=1.234, p = 0.441 and HR=1.220, p = 0.544), respectively).

CONCLUSION

We found that CLND had no significant impact on patient survival and MM recurrence rate, thus corroborating the validity of current clinical guidelines.

Reducing workload in malignant melanoma sentinel node examination: a national study of pathology reports from 507 melanoma patients

AIMS

Even though extensive melanoma sentinel node (SN) pathology protocols increase metastasis detection, there is a need for balancing high detection rates with reasonable workload. A newly tested Danish protocol recommended examining nodes at six levels 150 µm apart (six-level model) and using SOX10 and Melan-A immunohistochemistry (IHC). We explored if a protocol examining 3 levels 300 µm apart (three-level model) combined with IHC would compromise metastasis detection. The study aim was to optimise the protocol to reduce workload without compromising detection rate.

METHODS

8 months after protocol implementation, we reviewed the pathology reports of SNs from 507 melanoma patients nationwide, including 117 SN-positive patients. Each report was reviewed to determine histopathological features, including detection of metastasis, exact levels with metastasis, exact levels with metastasis >1 mm in diameter and IHC results.

RESULTS

The six-level model detected metastases in 23% of patients, whereas the three-level model would have detected metastases in 22% of patients. The three-level model would have missed a few small metastases (n=4), measuring <0.1 mm, 0.1 mm, 0.4 mm and 0.1 mm, respectively. The six-level model detected metastases >1 mm in 7% of patients. One of these metastases (measuring 1.1 mm) would have been detected by the three-level model, but not as >1 mm. SOX10 and Melan-A had equal sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing the number of levels examined to three levels 300 µm apart combined with IHC does not have significant impact on metastasis detection rate, and we will therefore recommend that the future melanoma SN guideline takes this into consideration to reduce overall workload.

Development and validation of a novel model to predict recurrence-free survival and melanoma-specific survival after sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma: an international, retrospective, multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage.

METHODS

Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia).

FINDINGS

The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas.

FUNDING

Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute.

Isolated melanoma cells in sentinel lymph node in stage IIIA melanoma correlate with a favorable prognosis similar to stage IB

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC v8) defines sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) containing any tumor cells as positive SLN. Consequently, even thin melanomas with isolated tumor cells (ic) in SLN are classified as stage IIIA, making them candidates for adjuvant therapy.

OBJECTIVES AND ENDPOINTS

We aimed to evaluate survival outcomes of melanoma stage IIIA (ic) and compare them with stage IIIA with lymph node (LN) metastases > 0.1 mm. Primary endpoints were relapse-free survival (RFS) and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS). Secondary endpoint was melanoma specific survival (MSS).

RESULTS

The discovery cohort from the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, included 237 patients; confirmation cohort included 143 patients from the DeCOG trial. The Tuebingen cohort included 95 patients with stage IIIA (ic) and 142 patients with stage IIIA. The DeCOG trial included 39 patients with stage IIIA (ic) and 104 patients with stage IIIA. In the Tuebingen cohort, 10-year RFS rates for stage IIIA (ic) and IIIA were 84% (95% CI 75-94) and 49% (95% CI 39-59), respectively (p < 0.001). 10-year DMFS rates for stage IIIA (ic) and IIIA were 89% (95% CI 81-97) and 56% (95% CI 45-67), respectively; (p < 0.001). In the DeCOG cohort, 10-year RFS for stage IIIA (ic) and stage IIIA were 88% (95% CI 78-99) and 35% (95% CI 7-62), respectively; (p = 0.009). 10-year DMFS for stage IIIA (ic) and IIIA was 88% (95% CI 77-99) and 60% (95% CI 39-80), respectively (p = 0.061).

CONCLUSION

Stage IIIA (ic) melanoma exhibits a prognosis similar to stage IB. Recommendation of adjuvant therapy in Stage IIIA (ic) warrants thorough discussion.

Real-world relapse-free survival data on adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent stage III melanoma

We aimed to compare the relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients treated with adjuvant anti-programmed cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) therapy for a first diagnosis of stage III melanoma to patients treated after resection of the recurrences. Patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy after complete resection of stage III melanoma between September 2018 and January 2021, were included. Depending on when adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment was initiated, patients were divided over 2 cohorts: for the first diagnosis (cohort A) or for a second or subsequent diagnosis (cohort B) of stage III melanoma. Clinical data and RFS were compared between cohorts. 66 patients were included: 37 in cohort A, 29 in cohort B. Median follow-up time from the start of adjuvant therapy was 21 months and 17 months in cohorts A and B, respectively. Significant differences in ulceration of the primary tumor ( P  = 0.032), stage according to the 7th AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer , P  = 0.026) and type of metastatic involvement ( P  = 0.005) were found between cohorts. In cohorts A and B, 18 (49%) and 8 (28%) patients developed a recurrence and the 1-year RFS was 51% and 72%, respectively. In cohort B, RFS remained longer in the patients of which the interval between first diagnosis of stage III melanoma and start of adjuvant therapy was >48 months compared to ≤48 months (83% vs. 65%, P  = 0.253). This study demonstrates that patients with recurrent stage III disease, not previously treated with adjuvant systemic therapy, may derive similar benefit to a first diagnosis of stage III patients if access to adjuvant therapy changes.

Prediction of nonsentinel lymph node metastasis in acral melanoma with positive sentinel lymph nodes

BACKGROUND

Metastasis in a nonsentinel lymph node (non-SLN) is an unfavorable independent prognostic factor in cutaneous melanoma (CM). Recent data did suggest potential value of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in CM patients with non-SLN metastasis. Prediction of non-SLN metastasis assists clinicians in deciding on adjuvant therapy without CLND. We analyzed risk factors and developed a prediction model for non-SLN status in acral melanoma (AM).

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 656 cases of melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from 2009 to 2017. We identified 81 SLN + AM patients who underwent CLND. Clinicopathologic data, including SLN tumor burden and non-SLN status were examined with Cox and Logistics regression models.

RESULTS

Ulceration, Clark level, number of deposits in the SLN (NumDep) and maximum size of deposits (MaxSize) are independent risk factors associated with non-SLN metastases. We developed a scoring system that combines ulceration, the cutoff values of Clark level V, MaxSize of 2 mm, and NumDep of 5 to predict non-SLN metastasis with an efficiency of 85.2% and 100% positive predictive value in the high-rank group (scores of 17-24).

CONCLUSIONS

A scoring system that included ulceration, Clark level, MaxSize, and NumDep is reliable and effective for predicting non-SLN metastasis in SLN-positive AM.

Sentinel lymph node assessment in melanoma: current state and future directions

Assessment of sentinel lymph node status is an important step in the evaluation of patients with melanoma for both prognosis and therapeutic management. Pathologists have an important role in this evaluation. The methodologies have varied over time, from the evaluation of dimensions of metastatic burden to determination of the location of the tumour deposits within the lymph node to precise cell counting. However, no single method of sentinel lymph node tumour burden measurement can currently be used as a sole independent predictor of prognosis. The management approach to sentinel lymph node-positive patients has also evolved over time, with a more conservative approach recently recognised for selected cases. This review gives an overview of past and current status in the field with a glimpse into future directions based on prior experiences and clinical trials.

Alternatives and reduced need for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) staging for melanoma

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced in the 1990s to identify patients who might benefit from completion lymph node dissection. Neither SLNB nor CLND improved survival, but SLNB staging did provide the best staging, above Breslow thickness and ulceration. The SLN status and SLN tumour burden were used in all trials until date looking at modern adjuvant systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) or targeted therapies (TT). Adjuvant ICI and TT are shifting towards stage II melanoma. The question is whether there is still role for SLNB in melanoma, in this day and age, and if so, how does the future look for SLNB staging? The SLN status and SLN tumour burden might be useful for a consultation to discuss the number needed to treat in a risk/benefit discussion. For stage IIB/C patients, it seems likely, however, that patients will forego a nuclear scan followed by the risk of surgical intervention and morbidity associated with SLNB if they opt to receive adjuvant therapy regardless of the SLNB result. For stage I/IIA, it is still required to detect high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, biomarkers are emerging, such as gene expression profilers (GEP), immunohistological signatures and liquid biopsies with ctDNA. There still is a role for SLNB staging in melanoma today, but we expect that the availability of therapeutic option independent of SLNB status as well as emergence of validated biomarkers to predict risk will reduce the need for SLNB staging in the upcoming decade to the point it will no longer be used.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Extremity and Truncal Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Regional lymph node metastasis (RLNM) occurs infrequently in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS), although certain STS subtypes have a higher propensity for RLNM. The identification of RLNM has significant implications for staging and prognosis; however, the precise impact of node-positive disease on patient survival remains a topic of controversy. Although the benefits of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) are well documented in patients with melanoma and breast cancer, whether this procedure offers a benefit in STS is controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed and articles reviewed to determine if SLNB in patients with extremity/truncal STS impacts disease-free or overall survival.

RESULTS

Six studies were included. Rates of sentinel lymph node positivity were heterogeneous (range 4.3-50%). The impact of SLNB on patient outcomes remains unclear. The overall quality of available evidence was low, as assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature addressing the impact of nodal basin evaluation on the staging and management of patients with extremity/truncal STS is confounded by heterogeneous patient cohorts and clinical practices. Multicenter prospective studies are warranted to determine the true incidence of RLNM and whether SLNB could benefit patients with clinically occult RLNM at diagnosis.

Melanoma lymph node metastases - moving beyond quantity in clinical trial design and contemporary practice

The presence of lymph node metastases is a well-studied prognostic factor for cutaneous melanoma. Characterization of melanoma lymph node metastases and their association with survival in multiple, large observational studies has led to recognition of the following high-risk features: quantity of lymph node metastases (number of nodes), size of the nodal tumor deposit (in mm), and extracapsular extension. Despite increasing utilization of these features in the design of randomized clinical trials, in addition to their role in contemporary clinical decision-making, current staging systems lag behind, only accounting for the quantity of lymph nodes with metastases. Herein, we review the prognostic role of melanoma lymph node metastases and their high-risk features, current reporting standards, how such features have been utilized in practice-changing trials, and best practices for future clinical trial design and clinical decision-making.

Therapeutic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients With Melanoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a standard staging procedure for cutaneous melanoma. Regional disease control is a clinically important therapeutic goal of surgical intervention, including nodal surgery.

Objective

To determine how frequently SLN biopsy without completion lymph node dissection (CLND) results in long-term regional nodal disease control in patients with SLN metastases.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II), a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomized participants with SLN metastases to either CLND or nodal observation. The current analysis examines observation patients with regard to regional nodal recurrence. Trial patients were aged 18 to 75 years with melanoma metastatic to SLN(s). Data were collected from December 2004 to April 2019, and data were analyzed from July 2020 to January 2022.

Interventions

Nodal observation with ultrasonography rather than CLND.

Main Outcomes and Measures

In-basin nodal recurrence.

Results

Of 823 included patients, 479 (58.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 52.8 (13.8) years. Among 855 observed basins, at 10 years, 80.2% (actuarial; 95% CI, 77-83) of basins were free of nodal recurrence. By univariable analysis, freedom from regional nodal recurrence was associated with age younger than 50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70; P < .001), nonulcerated melanoma (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.36-0.49; P < .001), thinner primary melanoma (less than 1.5 mm; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; P = .004), axillary basin (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.86; P = .005), fewer positive SLNs (1 vs 3 or more; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.75; P = .008), and SLN tumor burden (measured by diameter less than 1 mm [HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60; P = .001] or less than 5% area [HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.54; P < .001]). By multivariable analysis, younger age (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84; P = .004), thinner primary melanoma (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.70; P = .002), axillary basin (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.96; P = .03), SLN metastasis diameter less than 1 mm (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P = .007), and area less than 5% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88; P = .01) were associated with basin control. When looking at the identified risk factors of age (50 years or older), ulceration, Breslow thickness greater than 3.5 mm, nonaxillary basin, and tumor burden of maximum diameter of 1 mm or greater and/or metastasis area of 5% or greater and excluding missing value cases, basin disease-free rates at 5 years were 96% (95% CI, 88-100) for patients with 0 risk factors, 89% (95% CI, 82-96) for 1 risk factor, 86% (95% CI, 80-93) for 2 risk factors, 80% (95% CI, 71-89) for 3 risk factors, 61% (95% CI, 48-74) for 4 risk factors, and 54% (95% CI, 36-72) for 5 or 6 risk factors.

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial was the largest prospective evaluation of long-term regional basin control in patients with melanoma who had nodal observation after removal of a positive SLN. SLN biopsy without CLND cleared disease in the affected nodal basin in most patients, even those with multiple risk factors for in-basin recurrence. In addition to its well-validated value in staging, SLN biopsy may also be regarded as therapeutic in some patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00297895.

Health-related quality of life in stage III-IV melanoma treated with targeted therapy or immunotherapy: A systematic review on the adequacy of reporting and clinical issues in phase III randomized controlled trials

Cutaneous melanoma represents around over 90% of all melanoma. With more effective treatments able to extend patients' survival, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly becoming an important endpoint in cancer clinical trials. They are often secondary outcomes measured in phase III randomized controlled trials and their implementation, collection, analysis, and reporting can be challenging methodologically. For these reasons, an increasing number of international recommendations introduced the standards regarding the conduct of HRQOL. In this systematic review, we appraise the adequacy of HRQOL reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma and the clinical issues of immunotherapy and small-molecular-targeted therapy on HRQOL. Our search strategy totally got 55 articles, and only 13 studies met all inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that most treatments did not yield significant improvements in HRQOL but kept baseline levels, accompanied by prolonged survival and acceptable toxicity. Except for some existing limitations, reporting of HRQOL has made encouraging progress during the period covered by our search, but some aspects still need further optimization.

The role of sentinel node tumor burden in modeling the prognosis of melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy: an Italian melanoma intergroup study (N = 2,086)

Background

The management of melanoma patients with metastatic melanoma in the sentinel nodes (SN) is evolving based on the results of trials questioning the impact of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and demonstrating the efficacy of new adjuvant treatments. In this landscape, new prognostic tools for fine risk stratification are eagerly sought to optimize the therapeutic path of these patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of 2,086 patients treated with CLND after a positive SN biopsy in thirteen Italian Melanoma Centers was reviewed. Overall survival (OS) was the outcome of interest; included independent variables were the following: age, gender, primary melanoma site, Breslow thickness, ulceration, sentinel node tumor burden (SNTB), number of positive SN, non-sentinel lymph nodes (NSN) status. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.

Results

The 3-year, 5-year and 10-year OS rates were 79%, 70% and 54%, respectively. At univariate analysis, all variables, except for primary melanoma body site, were found to be statistically significant prognostic factors. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that older age (P < 0.0001), male gender (P = 0.04), increasing Breslow thickness (P < 0.0001), presence of ulceration (P = 0.004), SNTB size (P < 0.0001) and metastatic NSN (P < 0.0001) were independent negative predictors of OS.

Conclusion

The above results were utilized to build a nomogram in order to ease the practical implementation of our prognostic model, which might improve treatment personalization.

Mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) immunoreactivity in positive sentinel nodes from patients with melanoma

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cutaneous melanoma and a positive sentinel node (SN) are currently eligible for adjuvant treatment with targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging could be an alternative and less invasive tool for SN biopsy to select patients for adjuvant treatment. One potential target for NIR is the mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET). This study aimed to assess MET immunoreactivity in positive SNs and to evaluate its potential diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic value.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, positive SN samples from patients with primary cutaneous melanoma were collected to assess MET immunoreactivity. To this end, paraffin-embedded SNs were stained for MET (monoclonal antibody D1C2). A 4-point Histoscore was used to determine cytoplasmic and membranous immunoreactivity (0 negative/1 weak/2 moderate/3 strong). Samples were considered positive when ≥10% of the cancer cells showed MET expression (staining intensity ≥1). Patient and clinicopathological characteristics were used for descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and survival analyses.

RESULTS

Positive MET immunohistochemistry was observed in 24 out of 37 samples (65%). No statistically significant associations were found between MET positivity and the following prognostic factors: Breslow thickness (P = 0.961), ulceration (P = 1.000), and SN tumor burden (P = 0.792). According to MET positivity, Kaplan-Meier curves showed no significant differences in survival.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study found no evidence to support MET immunoreactivity in positive SNs as a possible diagnostic or prognostic indicator in patients with melanoma.

Single-Cell Immune Mapping of Melanoma Sentinel Lymph Nodes Reveals an Actionable Immunotolerant Microenvironment

PURPOSE

Improving our understanding of the immunologic response to cancer cells within the sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) of primary tumors is expected to identify new approaches to stimulate clinically meaningful cancer immunity.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We used mass cytometry by time-of-flight (CyTOF), flow cytometry, and T-cell receptor immunosequencing to conduct simultaneous single-cell analyses of immune cells in the SLNs of patients with melanoma.

RESULTS

We found increased effector-memory αβ T cells, TCR clonality, and γδ T cells selectively in the melanoma-bearing SLNs relative to non-melanoma-bearing SLNs, consistent with possible activation of an antitumor immune response. However, we also observed a markedly immunotolerant environment in the melanoma-bearing SLNs indicated by reduced and impaired NK cells and increased levels of CD8+CD57+PD-1+ cells, which are known to display low melanoma killing capabilities. Other changes observed in melanoma-bearing SLNs when compared with non-melanoma-bearing SLNs include (i) reduced CD8+CD69+ T cell/T regulatory cell ratio, (ii) high PD-1 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and (iii) high CTLA-4 expression on γδ T cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that these immunologic changes compromise antimelanoma immunity and contribute to a high relapse rate. We propose the development of clinical trials to test the neo-adjuvant administration of anti-PD-1 antibodies prior to SLN resection in patients with stage III melanoma. See related commentary by Lund, p. 1996.

Sentinel node tumor burden in cutaneous melanoma. Survival with competing risk analysis and influence in relapses and non-sentinel node status: retrospective cohort study with long follow-up in a Spanish population

Several authors have studied the potential of sentinel lymph node (SLN) tumor burden as prognostic factor but the microscopic classifications used in different study groups were variable. We examined the prognostic role of tumor burden in SLN on melanoma specific-survival and competing causes of death. We also analysed clinical and histological factors as predictors of disease relapses and additional non sentinel lymph node (NSLN) metastases. We included all patients with cutaneous melanoma that underwent SLN biopsy between 2002 and 2012 at Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (Spain). The study end-points were death due to melanoma, melanoma relapse and involvement of NSLN. We used Fine-Gray test for competing risk analysis. A logistic regression model was performed to predict the risk of involvement of NSLN. Between 2002 and 2012, there were 348 patients who underwent SLN biopsy in our centre (308 were eligible for the study). 26.9% patients positive SLN. 88 patients died during the follow-up period and 66 (75%) died from melanoma. The 5-year cumulative incidence of melanoma death was 15.33% (95 % CI 15.25-15.42). The cumulative probability of death from melanoma was associated with gender, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, mitotic rate, ulceration and SLN tumor burden. In multivariable analysis, Breslow thickness and SLN tumor burden remained as independent prognostic factors. SLN tumor burden appears to be an important prognostic factor. It is very important reporting these characteristics in pathological reports. More prospective studies would be necessary to analyze these variables and to be able to make recommendations in management of melanoma patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma: rationale for neoadjuvant therapy and pivotal clinical trials

The treatment of malignant melanoma has drastically changed over the past decade with the advent of immune checkpoint blockade, targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibition, and other novel therapies such as oncolytic virus intralesional therapy. Despite improvements in patient response rates and survival with these new treatments, there exists a large portion of patients with surgically resectable disease that are high risk for relapse. Patients with high-risk resectable melanoma account for up to 20% of newly diagnosed cases. For this high-risk group of patients, neoadjuvant therapy has many purposed advantages over adjuvant therapy, including a more robust immune response due to abundant tumor antigens at treatment initiation, the ability to assess pathologic response to therapy, tumor downstaging leading to increased disease resectability, and a potential decreased need for extensive lymphadenectomies. These findings have been backed by preclinical models and multiple neoadjuvant trials are underway. In this review, we will discuss the trials that have set the foundation for the current treatment standards and discuss the role and rationale for neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk malignant melanomas.

Effect of the time interval between melanoma diagnosis and sentinel node biopsy on the size of metastatic tumour deposits in node-positive patients

INTRODUCTION

This study sought to assess whether the interval between diagnostic excision-biopsy of a primary melanoma and definitive wide excision with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) influenced the size of SN metastatic deposits, which might have implications for management and prognosis.

METHODS

Data were collected for (i) a Dutch population-based cohort of patients treated between 2004 and 2014 who underwent SNB within 100 days of complete excision of their primary melanoma and who were SN-positive with known SN metastasis diameter (n = 1027) and (ii) a cohort from a large Australian melanoma treatment centre (n = 541) who presented in the same time period. The effects of SNB timing on the size of SN metastatic deposits were analysed.

RESULTS

Dutch patients whose SNB was performed in the second or third months after diagnosis had significantly larger SN metastasis diameters than patients who had their SNB in the first month (median increases of 17% (95%CI -14, 60%, p = 0.211) and 71% (95%CI 15, 119%, p = 0.004), respectively). No significant difference in tumour diameter for early and late SNB was found in the Australian cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

SN metastasis diameter became progressively greater with SN biopsy in the second and third months after primary melanoma diagnosis in the larger, population-based patient cohort. An increase in metastasis diameter was not observed in the smaller, institutional cohort, possibly due to detection of larger SN metastases by routine pre-operative ultrasound, with fine-needle biopsy confirmation. These patients did not proceed to SNB and were therefore not included in the study.

Melanoma sentinel lymph node biopsy and completion lymph node dissection: A regional hospital experience

Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) following positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for cutaneous melanoma is a topic of controversy. The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II) suggested no survival benefit with CLND over observation amongst patients with a positive SLNB. The findings of the MSLT-II may have limited applicability to our high-risk population where nodal ultrasound and non-surgical melanoma treatment is rationed. In this regional, retrospective study, we reviewed primary melanoma, SLNB and CLND histopathological reports in the Bay of Plenty District Health Board (BOPDHB) across a 10-year period. The primary outcomes measured were size of sentinel lymph node metastases and non-sentinel node (NSN) positivity on CLND for patients with a positive SLNB. In the 157 SLNB identified, the mean sentinel lymph node metastatic deposit size was larger in BOPDHB compared with MSLT-II (3.53 vs 1.07/1.11mm). A greater proportion of BOPDHB patients (54.8%) had metastatic deposits larger than 1mm compared with MSLT-II (33.2/34.5%) and the rate of NSN involvement on CLND was also higher (23.8% vs 11.5%). These findings indicate that the BOPDHB is a high-risk population for nodal melanoma metastases. Forgoing CLND in the context of a positive SLNB may place these patients at risk.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapies for patients with high-risk melanoma in Europe: a model-based economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out.

RESULTS

In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effective, followed by pembrolizumab. Combination therapy with dabrafenib-trametinib was the least cost-effective. With the increasing number of patients with high-risk melanoma who will be treated with adjuvant treatment, there is an urgent need to reduce drug costs while developing better prognostic and predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant treatment.

High-resolution three-dimensional imaging for precise staging in melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Many cancer guidelines include sentinel lymph node (SLN) staging to identify microscopic metastatic disease. Current SLN analysis of melanoma patients is effective but has the substantial drawback that only a small representative portion of the node is sampled, whereas most of the tissue is discarded. This might explain the high clinical false-negative rate of current SLN diagnosis in melanoma. Furthermore, the quantitative assessment of metastatic load and microanatomical localisation might yield prognosis with higher precision. Thus, methods to analyse entire SLNs with cellular resolution apart from tedious sequential physical sectioning are required.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eleven melanoma patients eligible to undergo SLN biopsy were included in this prospective study. SLNs were fixed, optically cleared, whole-mount stained and imaged using light sheet fluorescence microscopy (LSFM). Subsequently, compatible and unbiased gold standard histopathological assessment allowed regular patient staging. This enabled intrasample comparison of LSFM and histological findings. In addition, the development of an algorithm, RAYhance, enabled easy-to-handle display of LSFM data in a browsable histologic slide-like fashion.

RESULTS

We comprehensively quantify total tumour volume while simultaneously visualising cellular and anatomical hallmarks of the associated SLN architecture. In a first-in-human study of 21 SLN of melanoma patients, LSFM not only confirmed all metastases identified by routine histopathological assessment but also additionally revealed metastases not detected by routine histology alone. This already led to additional therapeutic options for one patient.

CONCLUSION

Our three-dimensional digital pathology approach can increase sensitivity and accuracy of SLN metastasis detection and potentially alleviate the need for conventional histopathological assessment in the future. GERMAN CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER: (DRKS00015737).

Crossover and rechallenge with pembrolizumab in recurrent patients from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote-054 phase III trial, pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma with complete resection of lymph nodes. In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of grade I-V and of grade III-V immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 37% and 7%, respectively.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to receive intravenous (i.v.) pembrolizumab 200 mg (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) every 3 weeks, up to 1 year. On recurrence, patients could enter part 2 of the study: pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks up to 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who had recurrence ≥6 months after completing 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy). For these patients, we present the safety profile and efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), in the placebo group, 298 patients had a disease recurrence, in which 155 (52%) crossed over ('crossover'). In the pembrolizumab group, 297 patients completed the 1-year treatment period; 47 had a recurrence ≥6 months later, in which 20 (43%) entered the rechallenge part 2 ('rechallenge'). In the crossover group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7-15.2) and the 3-year PFS rate was 32% (95% CI 25-40%). Among 80 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) patients with complete response (CR) and 17 (21%) patients with partial response. The 2-year PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48-83%). In the rechallenge group, the median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-NE). Among 9 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 1 had an objective response (CR). Among the 175 patients, 51 (29%) had a grade I-IV irAE and 11 (6%) had a grade III-IV irAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded an overall 3-year PFS rate of 32% and a 39% ORR in evaluable patients, but the efficacy (11% ORR) was lower in those rechallenged.

Sentinel Node Biopsy for Conjunctival Melanoma; Single Centre Experience and Review of Current Literature

Purpose

To evaluate the role of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in patients with conjuctival melanoma (CjM).

Study design

Retrospective observational cohort study and literature review.

Subjects

Slovenian patients with CjM are included in the study.

Methods

Prospectively collected data of CjM patients treated from June 2005 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed.

Main outcome measures

The numbers of SLN biopsy procedures, positive and false positive SLN, and local and regional relapses have been described together with overall survival.

Results

From June 2005 until December 2016, 24 patients with CjM were treated. The median follow-up time was 65.3 months. The mean Breslow thickness was 1.5 mm (sd = 1.8 mm), and ulceration was present in 29% of cases. Altogether, 14/24 (58%) SLN biopsy procedures were performed. SLN was positive in 2/14 (14%) cases. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) of the group was 72.5%, with a median survival of 151 months (95% CI 77–224). From January 2013 to January 2020, five (5/140, 3%) authors reported results comparable to our study.

Conclusion

Our results confirm that CjM is a rare disease with approximately 14% of positive SLN. At the moment, there are no firm conclusions regarding who would benefit most from SLN biopsy or whether or not CLND should be offered. Data from literature emphasize the need for consistent and uniform staging and future multicentric studies.

American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging and Other Platforms to Assess Prognosis and Risk

The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system relies on assessments of the primary tumor (T), regional lymph nodes (N), and distant metastatic sites (M). Its notable updates include tumor thickness measurements to the nearest 0.1 mm, revision of T1a and T1b definitions, re-evaluation of N category descriptors, increased number of stage III subgroupings, and incorporation of a new M1d designation, among others. These changes were based on analyses of a large contemporary international melanoma database. Ultimately, these revisions were made to improve staging and prognostication, risk stratification, and selection of patients for clinical trials.

Histopathologic and Molecular Diagnosis of Melanoma

Conventional histopathology is the primary means of melanoma diagnosis. Both architectural and cytologic features aid in discrimination of melanocytic nevi from melanoma. Communication between the clinician and pathologist regarding the history, examination, differential diagnosis, prior biopsy findings, method of sampling, and specimen orientation is critical to an accurate diagnosis. A melanoma pathology report includes multiple prognostic indicators to guide surgical and medical management. In challenging cases, immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics may be of benefit.

Survival in Patients With Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma With Extranodal Extension

BACKGROUND

Prognostic parameters in sentinel node (SN)-positive melanoma are important indicators to identify patients at high risk of recurrence who should be candidates for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate the presence of melanoma cells beyond the SN capsule-extranodal extension (ENE)-as a prognostic factor in patients with positive SNs.

METHODS

Data from 1,047 patients with melanoma and positive SNs treated from 2001 to 2020 at the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milano, Italy, were retrospectively investigated. Kaplan-Meier survival and crude cumulative incidence of recurrence curves were estimated. A multivariable logistic model was used to investigate the association between ENE and selected predictive factors. Cox models estimated the effect of the selected predictors on survival endpoints.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 69 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 62.5% and 71.7% for patients with positive SNs with and without ENE, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 54.0% and 64.0% for patients with positive SNs with and without ENE, respectively. The multivariable logistic model showed that age, size of the main metastatic focus in the SN, and numbers of metastatic non-SNs were associated with ENE (all P<.0001). The multivariable Cox regression models showed the estimated prognostic effects of ENE associated with age, ulceration, size of the main metastatic focus in the SN, and number of metastatic non-SNs (all P<.0001) on disease-free survival and overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

ENE was a significant prognostic factor in patients with positive-SN melanoma. This parameter may be useful in clinical practice as a selection criterion for adjuvant treatment in patients with stage IIIA disease with a tumor burden <1 mm in the SN. We recommend its inclusion as an independent prognostic determinant in future updates of melanoma guidelines.

Feasibility of Conebeam CT-based online adaptive radiotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer

Background

Online adaptive radiotherapy has the potential to reduce toxicity for patients treated for rectal cancer because smaller planning target volumes (PTV) margins around the entire clinical target volume (CTV) are required. The aim of this study is to describe the first clinical experience of a Conebeam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive workflow for rectal cancer, evaluating timing of different steps in the workflow, plan quality, target coverage and patient compliance.

Methods

Twelve consecutive patients eligible for 5 × 5 Gy pre-operative radiotherapy were treated on a ring-based linear accelerator with a multidisciplinary team present at the treatment machine for each fraction. The accelerator is operated using an integrated software platform for both treatment planning and delivery. In all directions for all CTVs a PTV margin of 5 mm was used, except for the cranial/caudal borders of the total CTV where a margin of 8 mm was applied. A reference plan was generated based on a single planning CT. After aligning the patient the online adaptive procedure started with acquisition of a CBCT. The planning CT scan was registered to the CBCT using deformable registration and a synthetic CT scan was generated. With the support of artificial intelligence, structure guided deformation and the synthetic CT scan contours were adapted by the system to match the anatomy on the CBCT. If necessary, these contours were adjusted before a new plan was generated. A second and third CBCT were acquired to validate the new plan with respect to CTV coverage just before and after treatment delivery, respectively. Treatment was delivered using volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT). All steps in this process were defined and timed.

Results

On average the timeslot needed at the treatment machine was 34 min. The process of acquiring a CBCT, evaluating and adjusting the contours, creating the new plan and verifying the CTV on the CBCT scan took on average 20 min. Including delivery and post treatment verification this was 26 min. Manual adjustments of the target volumes were necessary in 50% of fractions. Plan quality, target coverage and patient compliance were excellent.

Conclusions

First clinical experience with CBCT-based online adaptive radiotherapy shows it is feasible for rectal cancer.

Trial registration Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and was retrospectively approved by the Medical Ethics review Committee of the Academic Medical Center (W21_087 # 21.097; Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-021-01866-7.

Pembrolizumab in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma: efficacy and safety

Introduction: Regional or distant metastases from melanoma may be surgically resected but remain at high-risk of recurrence. Over the last few years, several treatments have been approved to mitigate this risk. These include anti-PD-1 agents, specifically pembrolizumab and nivolumab.Areas covered: Herein, we will discuss the landscape of pembrolizumab safety and efficacy used in the adjuvant setting for high-risk, resected melanoma. We place this in context with other available adjuvant therapies, and discuss subgroup analyses.Expert opinion: Anti-PD-1 therapy with either pembrolizumab or nivolumab has become a standard of care for patients with resected stage III or IV melanoma. In our practice, we generally offer these agents (which have comparable safety and efficacy profiles) to patients with resected stage IIIb-IV melanoma regardless of BRAF mutation status.

Survival of sentinel node biopsy versus observation in intermediate-thickness melanoma: A Dutch population-based study

Background

The Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-1) comparing survival after a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) versus nodal observation in melanoma patients did not show a significant benefit favoring SLNB. However, in subgroup analyses melanoma-specific survival among patients with nodal metastases seemed better.

Aim

To evaluate the association of performing a SLNB with overall survival in intermediate thickness melanoma patients in a Dutch population-based daily clinical setting.

Methods

Survival, excess mortality adjusted for age, gender, Breslow-thickness, ulceration, histological subtype, location, co-morbidity and socioeconomic status were calculated in a population of 1,989 patients diagnosed with malignant cutaneous melanoma (1.2–3.5 mm) on the trunk or limb between 2000–2016 in ten hospitals in the South East area, The Netherlands.

Results

A SLNB was performed in 51% of the patients (n = 1008). Ten-year overall survival after SLNB was 75% (95%CI, 71%-78%) compared to 61% (95%CI 57%-64%) following observation. After adjustment for risk factors, a lower risk on death (HR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.66–0.96) was found after SLNB compared to observation only.

Conclusions

SLNB in patients with intermediate-thickness melanoma on trunk or limb resulted in a 14% absolute and significant 10-year survival difference compared to those without SLNB.

A review of the AJCC melanoma staging system in the TNM classification (eighth edition)

In the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, several modifications were made for melanoma. These modifications were aimed at improving the prognosis prediction accuracy of the staging system. The main modifications are as follows: the cutoff value of the T1 category has been changed, and there are new classifications of stage IIID and of M1d (metastasis of the central nervous system). These changes will allow for more accurate stratification of melanoma prognosis. However, it is necessary to validate the new modifications through future clinical research.

Current management of melanoma patients with nodal metastases

The management of melanoma patients with nodal metastases has undergone dramatic changes over the last decade. In the past, the standard of care for patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), while patients with palpable macroscopic nodal disease underwent a therapeutic lymphadenectomy in cases with no evidence of systemic spread. However, studies have shown that SLN metastases present as a spectrum of disease, with certain SLN-based factors being prognostic of and correlated with outcomes. Furthermore, the results of key clinical trials demonstrate that CLND provides no survival benefit over nodal observation in positive SLN patients, while other clinical trials have shown that adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or targeted therapy after CLND is associated with a recurrence-free survival benefit. Given the efficacy of these systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting, these agents are now being evaluated and utilized as neoadjuvant treatments in patients with regionally-localized or resectable metastatic melanoma. Multiple options now exist to treat melanoma patients with nodal disease, and determining the best treatment course for a particular case requires an in-depth knowledge of current data and an informed discussion with the patient. This review will provide an overview of the various options for treating melanoma patients with nodal metastases and will discuss the data that supported the development of these treatment options.

How we treat locoregional melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer and its incidence has been increasing in the past 30 years. Although this is completely resectable in most cases, thicker melanoma and those with regional lymph-node involvement are at a high risk of relapse. In recent years, the management of locoregional disease has drastically changed. In particular, in the 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), subgroup classification of TNM (tumor–node–metastasis) has been modified, with the addition of the IIID stage. Furthermore, in recent randomized trials, completion lymph node dissection in case of sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity has not been shown to offer any improvement in overall survival versus observation. Consequently, radical dissection has been recommended as the standard treatment, but only in patients with palpable nodal metastases. However, the major novelty in the treatment of locally advanced melanoma has been the introduction of drugs, already used for metastatic disease, that have also shown clinical efficacy in the adjuvant setting. In fact, immunotherapies and, in the case of BRAF V600E/K-mutated melanoma, combination treatment of BRAF and MEK inhibitors have improved recurrence-free survival in these patients. In this paper, we will describe the current management of a patient with radically resectable melanoma and discuss the key points in light of the latest scientific evidence.

•

Melanoma is the deadliest of skin cancers, although most cases are resectable at diagnosis.

•

Use of targeted therapies and immunotherapies as adjuvant treatment revolutionized the scenario in stage III melanoma.

•

In this review, we summarize all current evidence about locoregional melanoma, including open issues and future directions.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial assessed pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. At 15-month median follow-up, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74], p<0·0001) compared with placebo, leading to its approval in the USA and Europe. This report provides the final results for the secondary efficacy endpoint, distant metastasis-free survival and an update of the recurrence-free survival results.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph node, classified as American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system, seventh edition (AJCC-7) stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central interactive voice response system to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and region, using a minimisation technique, and clinical investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing the data were masked to treatment assignment. The two coprimary endpoints were recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours. The secondary endpoint reported here was distant metastasis-free survival in the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). At an overall median follow-up of 42·3 months (IQR 40·5-45·9), 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (65·3% [95% CI 60·9-69·5] in the pembrolizumab group vs 49·4% [44·8-53·8] in the placebo group; HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was 66·7% (95% CI 61·8-71·2) in the pembrolizumab group and 51·6% (46·6-56·4) in the placebo group (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·49-0·76]; p<0·0001). Recurrence-free survival remained longer in the pembrolizumab group 59·8% (95% CI 55·3-64·1) than the placebo group 41·4% (37·0-45·8) at this 3·5-year follow-up in the ITT population (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·70]) and in those with PD-L1-positive tumours 61·4% (56·3-66·1) in the pembrolizumab group and 44·1% (39·2-48·8) in the placebo group (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]).

INTERPRETATION

Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in distant metastasis-free survival at a 3·5-year median follow-up, which was consistent with the improvement in recurrence-free survival. Therefore, the results of this trial support the indication to use adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy in patients with resected high risk stage III cutaneous melanoma.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Lymphadenectomy after a positive sentinel node biopsy in patients with cutaneous melanoma. A systematic review

Complete lymph node dissection (CLND) following a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been the standard treatment for years. However, there is increasing evidence that CLND could be omitted. Approximately 80% of patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy do not have additional nodal involvement; in these contexts, the SLNB could be diagnostic and therapeutic. However, in this group of patients, the therapeutic effect of CLND is unclear.

A systematic search was performed in EMBASE and MEDLINE (PubMed), for studies published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019. Studies were included when they compared immediate CLND and observation after a positive sentinel node. The outcomes of interest were: Overall Survival (OS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and disease-free survival (DFS).

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomized clinical trials reported no differences in OS or MSS when complete lymph dissection was compared with observation alone. An increase in regional relapse was observed in the CLND group, and in one randomized controlled trial (RCT) the rate of disease-free survival was superior in those patients.

Most populations in both RCTs had low sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) metastatic deposits, and head and neck melanomas were not included or underrepresented. When CNLD was omitted, an active surveillance protocol was carried out.

The evidence supports that CLND in SLNB positive patients does not confer a survival benefit. Sentinel tumor burden, localization of primary tumor, and feasibility of active surveillance should be taken into account in treatment decisions.

The sentinel node invasion level (SNIL) as a prognostic parameter in melanoma

Sentinel lymph node (SN) tumor burden is becoming increasingly important and is likely to be included in future N classifications in melanoma. Our aim was to investigate the prognostic significance of melanoma infiltration of various anatomically defined lymph node substructures. This retrospective cohort study included 1250 consecutive patients with SN biopsy. The pathology protocol required description of metastatic infiltration of each of the following lymph node substructures: intracapsular lymph vessels, subcapsular and transverse sinuses, cortex, paracortex, medulla, and capsule. Within the SN with the highest tumor burden, the SN invasion level (SNIL) was defined as follows: SNIL 1 = melanoma cells confined to intracapsular lymph vessels, subcapsular or transverse sinuses; SNIL 2 = melanoma infiltrating the cortex or paracortex; SNIL 3 = melanoma infiltrating the medulla or capsule. We classified 338 SN-positive patients according to the non-metric SNIL. Using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox models, recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and nodal basin recurrence rates were analyzed. The median follow-up time was 75 months. The SNIL divided the SN-positive population into three groups with significantly different RFS, MSS, and nodal basin recurrence probabilities. The MSS of patients with SNIL 1 was virtually identical to that of SN-negative patients, whereas outgrowth of the metastasis from the parenchyma into the fibrous capsule or the medulla of the lymph node indicated a very poor prognosis. Thus, the SNIL may help to better assess the benefit-risk ratio of adjuvant therapies in patients with different SN metastasis patterns.

Predictors of Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although completion lymph node dissection (CLND) is not routinely performed for a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) anymore, adjuvant therapy depends on the risk factors available from SLN biopsy, including the risk of nonsentinel node metastases (NSNM). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in an attempt to identify risk factors that could be used to predict the risk of NSNM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for articles discussing predictive factors for NSNM. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and RevMan software was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) using the Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

Fifty publications were suitable for additional analysis. The clinical and primary tumor factors that were consistently identified as risk factors for NSNMs were: age >50, T stage 3 or 4, Clark level IV/V, ulceration, microsatellitosis, lymphovascular invasion, nodular histology, and extremity versus trunk primary tumor location. SLN factors that predicted NSNMs were >1 positive SLN, SLN micrometastatic tumor burden, diameter >2 mm, extracapsular extension, nonsubcapsular location (Dewar), and Rotterdam > 1 mm or ≥ 0.1 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this study support that many clinical and pathologic risk factors that can be assessed with SLN biopsy alone can be used to predict the risk of NSNMs. The factors identified in this review should be evaluated in clinical prediction models to predict the risk of NSNMS, a prediction that may be used to select patients for adjuvant therapy in high-risk melanoma.

Sentinel node biopsy in patients with melanoma improves the accuracy of staging when added to clinicopathological features of the primary tumor

BACKGROUND

It has been claimed, without supporting evidence, that knowledge of sentinel node (SN) status does not provide more accurate prognostic information than basic clinicopathological features of a primary cutaneous melanoma. We sought to investigate this claim and to quantify any additional value of SN status in predicting survival outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data for a Dutch population-based cohort of melanoma patients (n = 9272) and for a validation cohort from a large Australian melanoma treatment center (n = 5644) were analyzed. Patients were adults diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 with histologically-proven, primary invasive cutaneous melanoma who underwent SN biopsy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were carried out in the Dutch cohort to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS). The findings were validated using the Australian cohort. Discrimination (Harrell's C-statistic), net benefit using decision curve analysis and net reclassification index (NRI) were calculated.

RESULTS

The Dutch cohort showed an improved C-statistic from 0.74 to 0.78 for OS and from 0.74 to 0.76 for RFS when SN status was included in the model with Breslow thickness, sex, age, site, mitoses, ulceration, regression and melanoma subtype. In the Australian cohort, the C-statistic increased from 0.70 to 0.73 for OS, 0.70 to 0.74 for RFS and 0.72 to 0.76 for MSS. Decision curve analyses showed that the 3-year and 5-year risk of death or recurrence were more accurately classified with a model that included SN status. At 3 years, sensitivity increased by 12% for both OS and RFS in the development cohort, and by 10% and 6% for OS and RFS, respectively, in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of SN status significantly improved the predictive accuracy for RFS, MSS and OS when added to a comprehensive suite of established clinicopathological prognostic factors. However, clinicians and patients must consider the magnitude of the improvement when weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of SN biopsy for melanoma.

Longer Follow-Up Confirms Recurrence-Free Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in High-Risk Stage III Melanoma: Updated Results From the EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 Trial

PURPOSE

We conducted the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial to evaluate pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. On the basis of 351 recurrence-free survival (RFS) events at a 1.25-year median follow-up, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P < .0001) compared with placebo. This led to the approval of pembrolizumab adjuvant treatment by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Here, we report an updated RFS analysis at the 3.05-year median follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1,019 patients with complete lymph node dissection of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (seventh edition; AJCC-7), stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis > 1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cutaneous melanoma were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The two coprimary end points were RFS in the overall population and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors.

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab (190 RFS events) compared with placebo (283 RFS events) resulted in prolonged RFS in the overall population (3-year RFS rate, 63.7% v 44.1% for pembrolizumab v placebo, respectively; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.68) and in the PD-L1-positive tumor subgroup (HR, 0.57; 99% CI, 0.43 to 0.74). The impact of pembrolizumab on RFS was similar in subgroups, in particular according to AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging, and BRAF mutation status (HR, 0.51 [99% CI, 0.36 to 0.73] v 0.66 [99% CI, 0.46 to 0.95] for V600E/K v wild type).

CONCLUSION

In resected high-risk stage III melanoma, pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a sustained and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS at 3-year median follow-up. This improvement was consistent across subgroups.

Challenges in sentinel node pathology in the era of adjuvant treatment

BACKGROUND

With the approval of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma, accurate staging is more important than ever. Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is an accurate staging tool, yet the presence of capsular nevi (CN) can lead to a false-positive diagnosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIA melanoma patients who were treated at our institute between 2000 and 2015. SNB slides were reviewed for this study by an expert melanoma pathologist.

RESULTS

Of 159 eligible patients, 14 originally diagnosed with metastatic melanoma merely had CN (8.8%). Another two merely had melanophages (1.3%). Thus, 10.1% of SNs were considered false positive after revision. In 12 patients, the SN tumor burden was originally reported as larger than 1 mm but turned out to be less than 1 mm. Four patients originally reported as SN tumor burden less than 1 mm before revision turned out to have larger than 1 mm. These patients might have been over- or undertreated in the current era of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinguishing metastatic melanoma from benign CN and melanophages can be a diagnostic challenge. We plead for an expert pathologists' review, especially when using the SNB + results to determine treatment consequences.

Updates in the evidence-based management of cutaneous melanoma

Treatment of cutaneous melanoma is changing with significant developments over the past several years that promise to reshape the field of melanoma surgical oncology. Modifications to the staging system based on analysis of a large international dataset, the timing and extent of regional lymphadenectomy, the emergence of effective systemic therapies in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, and the role of adjuvant radiation are all undergoing a data-driven evolution. Surgeon engagement in multidisciplinary decision making remains an essential component of contemporary management for patients across all stages of melanoma and demands specific involvement of head and neck surgical oncologists.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Past, Current, and Future Developments

This review describes the progress that the concept of adjuvant therapies has undergone in the last 50 years and focuses on the most recent development where an adjuvant approach has been scientifically evaluated in melanoma clinical trials. Over the past decade the development of immunotherapies and targeted therapies has drastically changed the treatment of stage IV melanoma patients. These successes led to trials studying the same therapies in the adjuvant setting, in high risk resected stage III and IV melanoma patients. Adjuvant immune checkpoint blockade with anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab was the first drug to show an improvement in recurrence-free and overall survival but this was accompanied by high severe toxicity rates. Therefore, these results were bypassed by adjuvant treatment with anti-PD-1 agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab and BRAF-directed target therapy, which showed even better recurrence-free survival rates with more favorable toxicity rates. The whole concept of adjuvant therapy may be integrated with the new neoadjuvant approaches that are under investigation through several clinical trials. However, there is still no data available on whether the effective adjuvant therapy that patients finally have at their disposal could be offered to them while waiting for recurrence, sparing at least 50% of them a potentially long-term toxic side effect but with the same rate of overall survival (OS). Adjuvant therapy for melanoma has radically changed over the past few years—anti-PD-1 or BRAF-directed therapy is the new standard of care.

The extent of surgery for stage III melanoma: how much is appropriate?

Since the first documented lymph node dissection in 1892, many trials have investigated the potential effect of this surgical procedure on survival in patients with melanoma. Two randomised controlled trials were unable to demonstrate improved survival with completion lymph node dissection versus nodal observation in patients with sentinel node-positive disease, although patients with larger sentinel node metastases (>1 mm) might benefit more from observation than from dissection, and could potentially be considered for adjuvant systemic therapy instead of complete dissection. Adjuvant immunotherapy with high-dose ipilimumab has led to improvements in overall survival, whereas therapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab has improved relapse-free survival with greater safety. Furthermore, adjuvant-targeted therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib has improved survival outcomes in BRAF^V600E and BRAF^V600K-mutated melanomas. Three neoadjuvant trials have all shown high response rates, including complete responses, after short-term combination therapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab with no recurrences so far, although follow-up is still short. Despite the absence of a survival benefit with completion lymph node dissection in patients with sentinel node-positive or negative disease, the use of sentinel node staging will increase because of the introduction of effective adjuvant therapies. However, routine completion lymph node dissection for sentinel node-positive disease should be reconsidered. Accordingly, existing clinical guidelines are currently being revised. For palpable (macroscopic) nodal disease, the type and extent of surgery could be reduced if the index node can accurately predict the response and if studies show that lymph node dissection can be safely foregone in patients with a complete response. Overall, the appropriate type and extent of surgery for stage III melanoma is changing and becoming more personalised.

Sentinel node tumor burden in prediction of prognosis in melanoma patients

Recent data have demonstrated no survival benefit to immediate completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for positive sentinel node (SN) disease in melanoma. It is important to identify parameters in positive SNs, which predict prognosis in melanoma patients. These might provide prognostic value in staging systems and risk models by guiding high-risk patients’ adjuvant therapy in clinical practice. In this retrospective study of university hospital melanoma database we analyzed tumor burden and prognosis in patients with positive SNs. Patients were stratified by the diameter of tumor deposit, distribution of metastatic focus in SN, ulceration and number of metastatic SNs. These were incorporated in Cox proportional hazard regression models. Predictive ability was assessed using Akaike information criterion and Harrell’s concordance index. A total of 110 patients had positive SN and 104 underwent CLND. Twenty-two (21%) patients had non-SN metastatic disease on CLND. The 5-year melanoma specific survival for CLND-negative patients was 5.00 years (IQR 3.23–5.00, range 0.72–5.00) compared to 3.69 (IQR 2.28–4.72, range 1.01–5.00) years in CLND-positive patients (HR 2.82 (95% CI 1.17–6.76, p = 0.020).The models incorporating distribution of metastatic focus and the largest tumor deposit in SN had highest predictive ability. According to Cox proportional hazard regression models, information criterions and c-index, the diameter of tumor deposit > 4 mm with multifocal location in SN despite of number of metastatic SN were the most important parameters. According to the diameter of tumor deposit and distribution of metastatic focus in SN, adequate stratification of positive SN patients was possible and risk classes for patients were identified.

Melanoma pathology reporting and staging

The pathological diagnosis of melanoma can be challenging. The provision of an appropriate biopsy and pertinent history can assist in establishing an accurate diagnosis and reliable estimate of prognosis. In their reports, pathologists should document both the criteria on which the diagnosis was based as well as important prognostic parameters. For melanoma, such prognostic parameters include tumor thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, neurotropism, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Disease staging is important for risk stratifying melanoma patients into prognostic groups and patient management recommendations are often stage based. The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Melanoma Staging System was implemented in 2018 and several important changes were made. Tumor thickness and ulceration remain the key T category criteria. T1b melanomas were redefined as either ulcerated melanomas <1.0 mm thick or nonulcerated melanomas 0.8-1.0 mm thick. Although mitotic rate was removed as a T category criterion in the 8th edition, it remains a very important prognostic factor and should continue to be documented in primary melanoma pathology reports. It was also recommended in the 8th edition that tumor thickness be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm (rather than the nearest 0.01 mm). In the future, incorporation of additional prognostic parameters beyond those utilized in the current version of the staging system into (web based) prognostic models/clinical tools will likely facilitate more personalized prognostic estimates. Evaluation of molecular markers of prognosis is an active area of current research; however, additional data are needed before it would be appropriate to recommend use of such tests in routine clinical practice.

Correlation of Tumor Burden in Sentinel Lymph Nodes with Tumor Burden in Nonsentinel Lymph Nodes and Survival in Cutaneous Melanoma

PURPOSE

In patients with cutaneous melanoma, metastasis in a nonsentinel lymph node (non-SLN) is a strong independent adverse prognostic factor. However, patients with a tumor-involved SLN no longer routinely undergo completion lymph node dissection (CLND). We hypothesized that SLN tumor burden may predict non-SLN tumor burden.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We compared tumor burden parameters between SLN and non-SLN in patients with cutaneous melanoma who underwent SLN biopsy with a positive SLN during 2003 to 2008 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

RESULTS

We identified 336 eligible patients with a positive SLN. Of these, 308 (92%) underwent CLND, and 35 (10%) had non-SLN metastasis. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. For patients with maximum diameter of tumor in the SLN ≤2.0 mm, >2.0-5.0 mm, and >5.0 mm, non-SLN metastasis was detected in 5 of 200 patients (3%), 10 of 63 patients (16%), and 20 of 57 patients (35%), and the mean maximum diameters of the non-SLN tumor deposits were 0.09, 1.56, and 2.71 mm, respectively (P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients with both subcapsular and intraparenchymal non-SLN tumor was higher for patients with SLN tumor in both locations than for patients with SLN tumor in only one location (P < 0.0001). Extranodal extension in a non-SLN was more common in patients with extranodal extension in an SLN (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cutaneous melanoma who undergo CLND, SLN tumor burden predicts non-SLN tumor burden. SLN tumor burden parameters provide accurate prognostic stratification independent of non-SLN status and should be considered for incorporation into future staging systems and integrated risk models.