The Integrated 31-Gene Expression Profile Test (i31-GEP) for Cutaneous Melanoma Outperforms the CP-GEP at Identifying Patients who can Forego Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy when Applying NCCN Guidelines
Main Article Content
Keywords
genomics, sentinel, lymph node biopsy, melanoma, GEP, clinicopathologic
Abstract
Introduction: Eighty-eight percent of patients who receive a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) receive a negative result. Current guidelines suggest avoiding SLNB if the risk of positivity is <5%. A low threshold for performing SLNB indicates worry about missing positive nodes but results in many unnecessary biopsies. The integrated 31-gene expression profile (i31-GEP) test combines the 31-GEP with Breslow thickness, age, ulceration, and mitotic rate using a validated neural network algorithm to identify patients with <5% risk by reporting a precise, individualized likelihood score. Using logistic regression, a separate GEP (8 genes plus Breslow thickness and age; CP-GEP) also aims to identify patients who can forego SLNB by binning patients into low- and high-risk categories. This study compared the i31-GEP for SLNB with the CP-GEP to identify patients who can safely forego SLNB.
Methods: This study evaluated the genes, gene pathways, and relative contribution of the two gene signatures relative to clinical and pathologic factors and further analyzed patients with T1b-T2 tumors from previously published studies in U.S. cohorts for the i31-GEP (n=763) and CP-GEP (n=153). A ratio of true-to-false-negative i31-GEP for SLNB and CP-GEP test results was compared to the guideline-established ratio of 19 negatives to one missed positive (19:1) if foregoing SLNB using a 5% risk threshold.
Results: The i31-GEP had a 30:1 true-to-false-negative ratio, compared to 15:1 using CP-GEP. In T1b tumors, the i31-GEP ratio increased to 35:1 compared to 14:1 using CP-GEP.
Limitations: Retrospective design, which could lead to bias. Patients included in both analyses were primarily from institutional surgical centers, and referral bias may not make the result generalizable.
Conclusion: Only the i31-GEP provided benefit over guideline-established care for identifying patients with low risk of SLN positivity.
References
2. Moncrieff, M. D. et al. Evaluation of the Indications for Sentinel Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Melanoma with the Advent of Adjuvant Systemic Therapy: An International, Multicenter Study. Ann Surg Oncol (2022) doi:10.1245/s10434-022-11761-4.
3. Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trials Study Group et al. Therapeutic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients With Melanoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg (2022) doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2055.
4. Paik, S. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. The New England journal of medicine 351, 2817–26 (2004).
5. Aaberg, T. M. et al. Gene Expression Profiling in Uveal Melanoma: Five-Year Prospective Outcomes and Meta-Analysis. Ocul Oncol Pathol 1–8 (2020) doi:10.1159/000508382.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. Gastman, B. R. et al. 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. J Am Acad Dermatol 80, 149-157.e4 (2019).
10. Keller, J. et al. Prospective validation of the prognostic 31‐gene expression profiling test in primary cutaneous melanoma. Cancer Med 8, 2205–2212 (2019).
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Bellomo, D. et al. Model Combining Tumor Molecular and Clinicopathologic Risk Factors Predicts Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma. JCO Precision Oncology 319–334 (2020) doi:10.1200/PO.19.00206.
15. Yousaf, A. et al. Validation of CP-GEP (Merlin Assay) for predicting sentinel lymph node metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma patients: A U.S. cohort study. International Journal of Dermatology n/a, (2021).
16. Gerami, P. et al. Development of a prognostic genetic signature to predict the metastatic risk associated with cutaneous melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 175–183 (2015).
17. 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).
18. 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.
19. Mulder, E. E. A. P. et al. Validation of a clinicopathological and gene expression profile model for sentinel lymph node metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma. Br J Dermatol bjd.19499 (2020) doi:10.1111/bjd.19499.
20. NCCN Melanoma Panel. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Melanoma: Cutaneous. at (2022).
21. Vickers, A. J., van Calster, B. & Steyerberg, E. W. A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis. Diagn Progn Res 3, 18 (2019).
22. Vickers, A. J., Van Calster, B. & Steyerberg, E. W. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ i6 (2016) doi:10.1136/bmj.i6.
23. Vickers, A. J., Cronin, A. M., Elkin, E. B. & Gonen, M. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 8, 53 (2008).
24. Luke, J. J. et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. The Lancet 399, 1718–1729 (2022).
25. 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).
26. 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).
27. 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).
28. Arias-Mejias, S. M. et al. Primary cutaneous melanoma risk stratification using a clinicopathologic and gene expression model: a pilot study. International Journal of Dermatology 59, e431–e433 (2020).
29. Sestak, I. et al. Comparison of the Performance of 6 Prognostic Signatures for Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 4, 545 (2018).
30. Wallden, B. et al. Development and verification of the PAM50-based Prosigna breast cancer gene signature assay. BMC Medical Genomics 8, 54 (2015).
31. 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).
32. 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.
33. 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).
34. Johansson, I. et al. Validation of a clinicopathological and gene expression profile model to identify patients with cutaneous melanoma where sentinel lymph node biopsy is unnecessary. European Journal of Surgical Oncology S0748798321008143 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2021.11.010.
35. Bartlett, E. K., Marchetti, M. A. & Coit, D. G. Gene Expression Profile-Based Risk Modeling to Select Patients With Melanoma Who Can Avoid Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: Are We There Yet? JCO Precision Oncology 988–989 (2020) doi:10.1200/PO.20.00146.
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.