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.

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.

Incorporation of the 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test to Improve Treatment Decisions in High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients: Case Series and Algorithm

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has become a significant public health issue due to its rapidly rising incidence and an estimated 1.8 million newly diagnosed cases annually. As with other cancers, treatment decisions for patients with cSCC are based primarily on a patient's risk for poor outcomes. There has been improvement in clinicopathologic factor-based risk assessment approaches, either through informal methods or ever evolving staging approaches. However, these approaches misidentify patients who will eventually have disease progression as low-risk and conversely, over classify patients as high-risk who do not experience relapse. To improve the accuracy of risk assessment for patients with cSCC, the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test has been validated to show statistically significant stratification of a high-risk cSCC patient's risk of nodal or distant metastasis, independent of currently available risk-assessment methods. The 40-GEP test allows for a more accurate classification of metastatic risk for high-risk cSCC patients, with the aim to influence appropriate allocation of clinician time and therapeutic resources to those patients who will most benefit. The objective of this article is to present a treatment algorithm in which clinicians can easily integrate the results of the 40-GEP test into their current treatment approaches to tailor patient care based on individual tumor biology. The following modalities were considered: surveillance imaging, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), and clinical follow-up. The authors have contributed their own cases for discussion as to how they have seen the beneficial impact of 40-GEP test results in their own practice. Overall, clinicians can identify risk-aligned treatment pathway improvements with the use of the 40-GEP test for challenging to manage, high-risk cSCC patients.

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.

Expanded evidence that the 31-gene expression profile test provides clinical utility for melanoma management in a multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (CM) recommend physicians consider increased surveillance for patients who typically have lower melanoma survival rates (stages IIB-IV as determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 8th edition). However, up to 15% of patients identified as having a low recurrence risk (stages I-IIA) experience disease recurrence, and some patients identified as having a high recurrence risk will not experience any recurrence. The 31-gene expression profile test (31-GEP) stratifies patient recurrence risk into low (Class 1) and high (Class 2) and has demonstrated risk-appropriate impact on disease management and clinical decisions.

METHODS

Five-year plans for lab work, frequency of clinical visits, and imaging pre- and post-31-GEP test results were assessed for a cohort of 509 stage I-III patients following an interim subset analysis of 247 patients.

RESULTS

After receiving 31-GEP results, 50.6% of patients had a change in management plans in at least one of the following categories-clinical visits, lab work, or surveillance imaging. The changes aligned with the risk predicted by the 31-GEP for 76.1% of patients with a Class 1 result and 78.7% of patients with a Class 2 result. A Class 1 31-GEP result was associated with changes toward low-intensity management recommendations, while a Class 2 result was associated with changes toward high-intensity management recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The 31-GEP can stratify patient recurrence risk in patients with CM, and clinicians understand and apply the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP test to alter patient management in risk-appropriate directions.

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.

Improved cutaneous melanoma survival stratification through integration of 31-gene expression profile testing with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Staging

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) survival is assessed using averaged data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8). However, subsets of AJCC8 stages I-III have better or worse survival than the predicted average value. The objective of this study was to determine if the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for CM can further risk-stratify melanoma-specific mortality within each AJCC8 stage. This retrospective multicenter study of 901 archival CM samples obtained from patients with stages I-III CM assessed 31-GEP test predictions of 5-year melanoma-specific survival (MSS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. In stage I-III CM population, patients with a Class 2B result had a lower 5-year MSS (77.8%) than patients with a Class 1A result (98.7%) and log-rank testing demonstrated significant stratification of MSS [χ2 (2df, n = 901) = 99.7, P < 0.001). Within each stage, 31-GEP data provided additional risk stratification, including in stage I [χ2 (2df, n = 415) = 11.3, P = 0.004]. Cox regression multivariable analysis showed that the 31-GEP test was a significant predictor of melanoma-specific mortality (MSM) in patients with stage I-III CM [hazard ratio: 6.44 (95% confidence interval: 2.61-15.85), P < 0.001]. This retrospective study focuses on Class 1A versus Class 2B results. Intermediate results (Class 1B/2A) comprised 21.6% of cases with survival rates between Class 1A and 2B, and similar to 5-year MSS AJCC stage values. Data from the 31-GEP test significantly differentiates MSM into lower (Class 1A) and higher risk (Class 2B) groups within each AJCC8 stage. Incorporating 31-GEP results into AJCC8 survival calculations has the potential to more precisely assess survival and enhance management guidance.

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.

Current Methods and Caveats to Risk Factor Assessment in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC): A Narrative Review

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common form of skin cancer, and the number of deaths due to cSCC is estimated to be greater than the number attributed to melanoma. While the majority of cSCC tumors are resectable with clear margins by standard excision practices, some lesions exhibit high-risk factors for which there is evidence of their association with recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death. The most commonly used staging systems and guidelines in the USA for cSCC are based on these clinical and pathologic high-risk factors; however, these are limited in their ability to predict adverse events, thus posing a challenge for implementing risk-directed patient management. Since the development of local recurrence and/or metastasis has a profound impact on the survival of patients with cSCC, accurate identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes is critical, potentially allowing for early and appropriate adjuvant therapy. This review summarizes the current cSCC literature with a focus on how differing clinical assessments within each of the five selected risk factors (perineural invasion, differentiation, depth of invasion, size, and location) can influence the evaluation of patient outcomes, along with summarizing the utility of staging and guidelines, and highlighting the potential for molecular tools to improve upon cSCC risk assessment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Validation of a 40-gene expression profile test to predict metastatic risk in localized high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Current staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have limited positive predictive value for identifying patients who will experience metastasis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a gene expression profile (GEP) test for predicting risk for metastasis in localized, high-risk cSCC with the goal of improving risk-directed patient management.

METHODS

Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary cSCC tissue and clinicopathologic data (n = 586) were collected from 23 independent centers in a prospectively designed study. A GEP signature was developed using a discovery cohort (n = 202) and validated in a separate, nonoverlapping, independent cohort (n = 324).

RESULTS

A prognostic 40-GEP test was developed and validated, stratifying patients with high-risk cSCC into classes based on metastasis risk: class 1 (low risk), class 2A (high risk), and class 2B (highest risk). For the validation cohort, 3-year metastasis-free survival rates were 91.4%, 80.6%, and 44.0%, respectively. A positive predictive value of 60% was achieved for the highest-risk group (class 2B), an improvement over staging systems, and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were comparable to staging systems.

LIMITATIONS

Potential understaging of cases could affect metastasis rate accuracy.

CONCLUSION

The 40-GEP test is an independent predictor of metastatic risk that can complement current staging systems for patients with high-risk cSCC.

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.

Level of Evidence Review for a Gene Expression Profile Test for Cutaneous Melanoma

BACKGROUND

The advent of molecular medicine may allow for individualized cancer prognostication, which should enable better clinical management and, hopefully, improve patient outcomes. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test is currently available for patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma; this test helps inform patients' individual treatment plans, especially when combined with traditional biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review the current literature and establish the level of evidence for a cutaneous melanoma 31-GEP test.

METHODS

A review of seven development and validation studies for the 31-GEP test was conducted. The respective strengths and weaknesses of each study were applied to the level of evidence criteria from major organizations that publish guidelines for melanoma management: American Joint Committee on Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Academy of Dermatology.

RESULTS

Evaluating each study led to classifying the 31-GEP test as level I/II, I-IIIB, and IIA according to American Joint Committee on Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Academy of Dermatology criteria, respectively. This stands in contrast to the official unrated status conferred by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the II/IIIC rating designated by the American Academy of Dermatology.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between the authors' findings and official published ratings may be attributed to chronological issues, as many of the studies were not yet published when the aforementioned organizations conducted their reviews. There was also difficulty in applying the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria to this prognostic test, as their guidelines were intended for evaluation of predictive markers. Nevertheless, based upon the most current data available, integration of the 31-GEP test into clinical practice may be warranted in certain clinical situations.

Surveillance imaging for metastasis in high-risk melanoma: importance in individualized patient care and survivorship

Most patients newly diagnosed with melanoma have early-stage disease considered of good prognosis. However, with a risk of recurrence, appropriate follow-up may include surveillance imaging for early relapse detection. Previously, surveillance imaging to detect recurrences was considered unjustified, given the lack of effective treatments. Now, systemic therapies have improved, and patients with low tumor burden may derive benefit from surveillance imaging. Despite this, controversy exists regarding the role of surveillance imaging in early-stage melanoma survivorship, in part reflected by the lack of consensus on specific imaging protocols and broad guidelines. This review discusses published evidence on surveillance imaging to detect metastasis in high-risk melanoma, the need for early recurrence detection and implications for value-based clinical decision-making, survivorship care and multidisciplinary patient management.

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

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

Early outcome of a 31-gene expression profile test in 86 AJCC stage IB-II melanoma patients. A prospective multicentre cohort study

Background

The clinical and pathological features of primary melanoma are not sufficiently sensitive to accurately predict which patients are at a greater risk of relapse. Recently, a 31‐gene expression profile (DecisionDx‐Melanoma) test has shown promising results.

Objectives

To evaluate the early prognostic performance of a genetic signature in a multicentre prospectively evaluated cohort.

Methods

Inclusion of patients with AJCC stages IB and II conducted between April 2015 and December 2016. All patients were followed up prospectively to assess their risk of relapse. Prognostic performance of this test was evaluated individually and later combined with the AJCC staging system. Prognostic accuracy of disease‐free survival was determined using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. Results of the gene expression profile test were designated as Class 1 (low risk) and Class 2 (high risk).

Results

Median follow‐up time was 26 months (IQR 22–30). The gene expression profile test was performed with 86 patients; seven had developed metastasis (8.1%) and all of them were in the Class 2 group, representing 21.2% of this group. Gene expression profile was an independent prognostic factor for relapse as indicated by multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusted for AJCC stages and age.

Conclusions

This prospective multicentre cohort study, performed in a Spanish Caucasian cohort, shows that this 31‐gene expression profile test could correctly identify patients at early AJCC stages who are at greater risk of relapse. We believe that gene expression profile in combination with the AJCC staging system could well improve the detection of patients who need intensive surveillance and optimize follow‐up strategies.

What's New in Melanoma

Melanoma is rapidly evolving because of advances in noninvasive diagnosis, targeted therapies, and improved prognostic methods. This article discusses what is new in melanoma risk factors, prevention, clinical management, and targeted treatment. The incidence continues to increase worldwide, whereas mortality is steadily improving. This trend reinforces the importance of dermatologists comprehensively understanding all aspects of melanoma. Further research is needed to continue making a material impact on outcomes for patients.

Identification of risk in cutaneous melanoma patients: Prognostic and predictive markers

New therapeutic modalities for melanoma promise benefit in selected individuals. Efficacy appears greater in patients with lower tumor burden, suggesting an important role for risk-stratified surveillance. Robust predictive markers might permit optimization of agent to patient, while low-risk prognostic markers might guide more conservative management. This review evaluates protein, gene, and multiplexed marker panels that may contribute to better risk assessment and improved management of patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Gene expression profiling in melanoma: past results and future potential

The field of melanoma oncology is rapidly evolving with advances in detection, staging and treatment. There is heterogeneity in all stages of melanoma where some patients fare better than others for reasons currently unknown and it is sometimes unclear which patients warrant closer surveillance, multidisciplinary care, increased imaging, more aggressive surgery or adjuvant therapy. Early studies have shown the predictive ability of gene expression profiling (GEP) and institutions that have adopted GEP for melanoma treatment have demonstrated changes in practice patterns and patient management. The goal of this paper is to review the clinical evidence for a new diagnostic test, DecisionDx-Melanoma, the only GEP test for cutaneous melanoma with prospective studies analyzing its utility.

Identification of patients at risk of metastasis using a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in subpopulations of melanoma patients with favorable outcomes by standard criteria

BACKGROUND

A substantial number of patients who relapse and die from cutaneous melanoma (CM) are categorized as being at low risk by traditional staging factors. The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test independently stratifies metastatic risk of patients with CM as low (Class 1, with 1A indicating lowest risk) or high (Class 2,with 2B indicating highest risk).

OBJECTIVE

To assess risk prediction by the 31-GEP test within 3 low-risk (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer) populations of patients with CM: those who are sentinel lymph node (SLN) negative, those with stage I to IIA tumors, and those with thin (≤1 mm [T1]) tumors.

METHODS

A total of 3 previous validation studies provided a nonoverlapping cohort of 690 patients with 31-GEP results, staging information, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The results included the identification of 70% of SLN-negative patients who experienced metastasis as Class 2, the discovery of reduced recurrence-free survival for patients with thin tumors and Class 2B biology compared with that of those with Class 1A biology (P < .0001); and determination of the 31-GEP test as an independent predictor of risk compared with traditional staging factors in patients with stage I to IIA tumors.

LIMITATIONS

Diagnoses spanned multiple versions of pathologic staging criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The 31-GEP test identifies high-risk patients who are likely to experience recurrence or die of melanoma within low-risk groups of subpopulations of patients with CM who have SLN-negative disease, stage I to IIA tumors, and thin tumors.