The Integrated 31-Gene Expression Profile (i31-GEP) Test for Cutaneous Melanoma Outperforms a Clinicopathologic-only Nomogram at Identifying Patients who can Forego Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Main Article Content
Keywords
genomics, melanoma, GEP, lymph node biopsy, MIA, nomogram
Abstract
Introduction: National guidelines for cutaneous melanoma suggest avoiding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) if the risk of SLN positivity is <5% (T1a with no high-risk features), considering SLNB if the risk is 5-10% (T1a with additional high-risk features (T1aHR) and T1b), and offering SLNB if the risk is >10% (T2-T4). Because most patients (88%) who undergo an SLNB have a negative result, novel tools to identify patients who can safely forgo SLNB are critical. The integrated 31-gene expression profile (i31-GEP for SLNB) test for cutaneous melanoma combines tumor molecular biology with clinicopathologic features to provide a precise risk of SLN positivity. The Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA) developed a nomogram that uses only clinicopathologic features to predict SLN positivity.
Methods: We compared the i31-GEP for SLNB to the MIA nomogram in patients with T1-T2 tumors with complete data (n=582). The precision of each tool to identify patients with <5% SLN positivity risk was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals. To be considered low risk, the predicted risk must be <5% and the upper 95% confidence interval must be ≤10%, and to be considered high-risk, the predicted risk must be >10% and the lower 95% CI ≥5%.
Results: The i31-GEP for SLNB identified 28.5% (166/582) of patients as having a <5% risk of SLN positivity while also having an upper 95% CI ≤10% compared with 0.9% (5/582, p<0.001) using the MIA nomogram. In patients with a pre-test likelihood of SLN positivity of 5-10% (T1aHR-T1b), the i31-GEP reclassified risk in 60.2% (171/284) of patients as being <5% or >10% compared to 13.7% (39/284, p<0.001) using the MIA nomogram. In patients with a known SLN status (n=466), the i31-GEP for SLNB identified 22.1% (103/466) of patients as having <5% risk, with a 3.9% (4/103) SLN positivity rate compared to 0.6% (3/466, p<0.001) identified by the MIA as having a <5% risk with a 33.3% (1/3) SLN positivity rate.
Conclusions: The i31-GEP test outperformed the MIA nomogram in identifying patients who could safely forego SLNB. Integrating the 31-GEP molecular risk stratification tool with clinicopathologic features provides precise SLN positivity risk to better guide patient management in patients with T1-T2 tumors, for whom SLNB guidance could be most impactful.
References
2. Gershenwald, J. E. et al. Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 67, 472–492 (2017).
3. Chen, J. et al. Prognostic role of sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with cutaneous melanoma: A retrospective study of surveillance, epidemiology, and end-result population-based data. Oncotarget 7, 45671–45677 (2016).
4. Friedman, C., Lyon, M., Torphy, R. J., Thieu, D. & Hosokawa, P. A nomogram to predict node positivity in patients with thin melanomas helps inform shared patient decision making. Journal of Surgical Oncology 1276–1283 (2019) doi:10.1002/jso.25720.
5. Weitemeyer, M. B., Helvind, N. M., Brinck, A. M., Hölmich, L. R. & Chakera, A. H. More sentinel lymph node biopsies for thin melanomas after transition to AJCC 8th edition do not increase positivity rate: A Danish population‐based study of 7148 patients. J Surg Oncol jso.26723 (2021) doi:10.1002/jso.26723.
6. Egger, M. E. et al. Should Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Be Performed for All T1b Melanomas in the New 8th Edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System? Journal of the American College of Surgeons 228, 466–472 (2019).
7. Teixeira, V. et al. Prediction of Sentinel Node Status and Clinical Outcome in a Melanoma Centre. Journal of Skin Cancer 2013, 1–7 (2013).
8. Sondak, V. K. et al. Mitotic Rate and Younger Age Are Predictors of Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity: Lessons Learned From the Generation of a Probabilistic Model. Ann Surg Oncol 11, 247–258 (2004).
9. Paek, S. C. et al. The impact of factors beyond Breslow depth on predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in melanoma. Cancer 109, 100–108 (2007).
10. Cascinelli, N. et al. Sentinel and Nonsentinel Node Status in Stage IB and II Melanoma Patients: Two-Step Prognostic Indicators of Survival. JCO 24, 4464–4471 (2006).
11. Lo, S. N. et al. Improved Risk Prediction Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity in Patients With Melanoma: The Melanoma Institute Australia Nomogram. JCO JCO.19.02362 (2020) doi:10.1200/JCO.19.02362.
12. Faries, M. B. Improved Tool for Predicting Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases in Melanoma. JCO 38, 2706–2708 (2020).
13. Arnot, S. P. et al. Utility of a 31-gene expression profile for predicting outcomes in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma referred for sentinel node biopsy. Am J Surg 221, 1195–1199 (2021).
14. Hsueh, E. C. et al. Long-Term Outcomes in a Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Evaluating the Prognostic 31-Gene Expression Profile for Cutaneous Melanoma. JCO Precision Oncology 5, 589–601 (2021).
15. Jarell, A. et al. The 31-gene expression profile stratifies recurrence and metastasis risk in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Future Oncology fon-2021-0996 (2021) doi:10.2217/fon-2021-0996.
16. Keller, J. et al. Prospective validation of the prognostic 31‐gene expression profiling test in primary cutaneous melanoma. Cancer Med 8, 2205–2212 (2019).
17. Zager, J. S. et al. Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients. BMC Cancer 18, 130 (2018).
18. Greenhaw, B. N. et al. Molecular risk prediction in cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis of the 31-gene expression profile prognostic test in 1,479 patients. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 83, 745–753 (2020).
19. Vetto, J. T. et al. Guidance of sentinel lymph node biopsy decisions in patients with T1–T2 melanoma using gene expression profiling. Future Oncology 15, 1207–1217 (2019).
20. Cook, R. W. et al. Analytic validity of DecisionDx-Melanoma, a gene expression profile test for determining metastatic risk in melanoma patients. Diagn Pathol 13, 13 (2018).
21. Whitman, E. D. et al. Integrating 31-Gene Expression Profiling With Clinicopathologic Features to Optimize Cutaneous Melanoma Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction. JCO Precision Oncology 1466–1479 (2021) doi:10.1200/PO.21.00162.
22. Jarell, A. et al. Optimizing treatment approaches for patients with cutaneous melanoma by integrating clinical and pathologic features with the 31-gene expression profile test. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology S0190962222022538 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.06.1202.
23. Marchetti, M. A., Dusza, S. W. & Bartlett, E. K. Utility of a Model for Predicting the Risk of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma. JAMA Dermatology (2022) doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0970.
24. Yardman-Frank, J. M. et al. Comparison of community pathologists with expert dermatopathologists evaluating Breslow thickness and histopathologic subtype in a large international population-based study of melanoma. JAAD International 4, 25–27 (2021).
25. Garbe, C. et al. Prognosis of Patients With Primary Melanoma Stage I and II According to American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 8 Validated in Two Independent Cohorts: Implications for Adjuvant Treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022) doi:10.1200/JCO.22.00202.
26. Berger, A. C. et al. Clinical impact of a 31-gene expression profile test for cutaneous melanoma in 156 prospectively and consecutively tested patients. Curr Med Res Opin 32, 1599–1604 (2016).
27. Dillon, L. D. et al. Expanded evidence that the 31-gene expression profile test provides clinical utility for melanoma management in a multicenter study. Curr Med Res Opin 1–21 (2022) doi:10.1080/03007995.2022.2033560.
28. Scott, A. M., Dale, P. S., Conforti, A. & Gibbs, J. N. Integration of a 31-Gene Expression Profile Into Clinical Decision-Making in the Treatment of Cutaneous Melanoma. Am Surg 86, 1561–1564 (2020).
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honor or reputation.
Authors retain copyright in their work and license the publisher to publish the content. The publisher is the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, with production and publishing support provided by OJS, Open Journal Systems,see https://pkp.sfu.
Prior to January 2022, authors transferred copyright to the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine. However, all articles are freely available to anyone in the world. There are no subscription fees, page charges, or article processing charges.