Top

Published in:

01-08-2018 | Review

Review of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in melanoma

Authors: Jacob S. Ankeny, Brian Labadie, Jason Luke, Eddy Hsueh, Jane Messina, Jonathan S. Zager

Published in: Clinical & Experimental Metastasis | Issue 5-6/2018

Abstract

Melanoma is an aggressive cutaneous malignancy with rapidly rising incidence. Diagnosis of controversial melanocytic lesions, correct prognostication of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to a given therapy remain very real challenges. Despite these challenges, multiple high throughput, nucleic-acid based biomarkers have been developed that can be assayed from histologic tissue specimens. FISH, CGH, Decision-Dx, and other multi-marker assays have been combined to improve overall predictability. This review discusses some of the most promising nucleic acid based assays that can be obtained from tissue specimens to assist with diagnosis, prognostication, and prediction of treatment response.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 67(1):7–30CrossRef

Gimotty PA, Guerry D (2010) Prognostication in thin cutaneous melanomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(12):1758–1763PubMed

Whiteman DC, Baade PD, Olsen CM (2015) More people die from thin melanomas (1 mm) than from thick melanomas (> 4 mm) in Queensland, Australia. J Invest Dermatol 135(4):1190–1193CrossRef

Wong SL et al (2005) A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Ann Surg Oncol 12(4):282–288CrossRef

Mahar AL, McShane LM, Groome PA, Compton CC (2013) A survey of clinical prediction tools in colorectal and lung cancers and melanoma. J Clin Oncol 31(15S): 1592

Mahar AL et al (2016) Critical assessment of clinical prognostic tools in melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 23(9):2753–2761CrossRef

Gould Rothberg BE, Bracken MB, Rimm DL (2009) Tissue biomarkers for prognosis in cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(7):452–474CrossRef

Schramm SJ, Mann GJ (2011) Melanoma prognosis: a REMARK-based systematic review and bioinformatic analysis of immunohistochemical and gene microarray studies. Mol Cancer Ther 10(8):1520–1528CrossRef

Gould Rothberg BE et al (2009) Melanoma prognostic model using tissue microarrays and genetic algorithms. J Clin Oncol 27(34):5772–5780CrossRef

10.

Piras F et al (2008) Combinations of apoptosis and cell-cycle control biomarkers predict the outcome of human melanoma. Oncol Rep 20(2):271–277PubMed

11.

Kashani-Sabet M et al (2009) A multimarker prognostic assay for primary cutaneous melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 15(22):6987–6992CrossRef

12.

Gerami P et al (2015) Development of a prognostic genetic signature to predict the metastatic risk associated with cutaneous melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 21(1):175–183CrossRef

13.

Gerami P et al (2015) Gene expression profiling for molecular staging of cutaneous melanoma in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Acad Dermatol 72(5):780–785.e3CrossRef

14.

Gerami P et al (2009) Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as an ancillary diagnostic tool in the diagnosis of melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol 33(8):1146–1156CrossRef

15.

Scolyer RA et al (2010) Histologically ambiguous (“borderline”) primary cutaneous melanocytic tumors: approaches to patient management including the roles of molecular testing and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(12):1770–1777PubMed

16.

Dalton SR et al (2010) Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to distinguish intranodal nevus from metastatic melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol 34(2):231–237CrossRef

17.

Pouryazdanparast P et al (2009) Distinguishing epithelioid blue nevus from blue nevus-like cutaneous melanoma metastasis using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Am J Surg Pathol 33(9):1396–1400CrossRef

18.

Gerami P et al (2009) Fluorescence in situ hybridization for distinguishing nevoid melanomas from mitotically active nevi. Am J Surg Pathol 33(12):1783–1788CrossRef

19.

Gerami P et al (2012) A highly specific and discriminatory FISH assay for distinguishing between benign and malignant melanocytic neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol 36(6):808–817CrossRef

20.

Gaiser T et al (2010) Classifying ambiguous melanocytic lesions with FISH and correlation with clinical long-term follow up. Mod Pathol 23(3):413–419CrossRef

21.

Massi D et al (2011) Atypical Spitzoid melanocytic tumors: a morphological, mutational, and FISH analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 64(5):919–935CrossRef

22.

Tetzlaff MT et al (2013) Ambiguous melanocytic tumors in a tertiary referral center: the contribution of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to conventional histopathologic and immunophenotypic analyses. Am J Surg Pathol 37(12):1783–1796CrossRef

23.

Vergier B et al (2011) Fluorescence in situ hybridization, a diagnostic aid in ambiguous melanocytic tumors: European study of 113 cases. Mod Pathol 24(5):613–623CrossRef

24.

Bauer J, Bastian BC (2006) Distinguishing melanocytic nevi from melanoma by DNA copy number changes: comparative genomic hybridization as a research and diagnostic tool. Dermatol Ther 19(1):40–49CrossRef

25.

Bastian BC et al (1998) Chromosomal gains and losses in primary cutaneous melanomas detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Res 58(10):2170–2175

26.

Ali L et al. (2010) Correlating array comparative genomic hybridization findings with histology and outcome in spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 3(6): 593–599

27.

Bastian BC et al (2003) Classifying melanocytic tumors based on DNA copy number changes. Am J Pathol 163(5):1765–1770CrossRef

28.

Clarke LE et al (2015) Clinical validation of a gene expression signature that differentiates benign nevi from malignant melanoma. J Cutan Pathol 42(4):244–252CrossRef

29.

Minca EC et al (2016) Comparison between melanoma gene expression score and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the classification of melanocytic lesions. Mod Pathol 29(8):832–843CrossRef

30.

Network NCC (2018) NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2018, in NCCN Clnical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Coit DG (ed) National Comprehensive Cancer Network

31.

Abbas O, Miller DD, Bhawan J (2014) Cutaneous malignant melanoma: update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Am J Dermatopathol 36(5):363–379CrossRef

32.

Adler NR et al (2017) Metastatic pathways in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 30(1):13–27CrossRef

33.

Nodin B et al (2012) High MCM3 expression is an independent biomarker of poor prognosis and correlates with reduced RBM3 expression in a prospective cohort of malignant melanoma. Diagn Pathol 7:82CrossRef

34.

Nielsen PS et al (2013) Proliferation indices of phosphohistone H3 and Ki67: strong prognostic markers in a consecutive cohort with stage I/II melanoma. Mod Pathol 26(3):404–413CrossRef

35.

Donizy P et al (2016) Golgi-related proteins GOLPH2 (GP73/GOLM1) and GOLPH3 (GOPP1/MIDAS) in cutaneous melanoma: patterns of expression and prognostic significance. Int J Mol Sci 17(10):1619CrossRef

36.

Fohn LE et al (2011) D2-40 lymphatic marker for detecting lymphatic invasion in thin to intermediate thickness melanomas: association with sentinel lymph node status and prognostic value-a retrospective case study. J Am Acad Dermatol 64(2):336–345CrossRef

37.

Han D et al (2013) Clinicopathologic predictors of sentinel lymph node metastasis in thin melanoma. J Clin Oncol 31(35):4387–4393CrossRef

38.

Rangel J et al (2008) Osteopontin as a molecular prognostic marker for melanoma. Cancer 112(1):144–150CrossRef

39.

Rangel J et al (2008) Novel role for RGS1 in melanoma progression. Am J Surg Pathol 32(8):1207–1212CrossRef

40.

Leiter U et al (2016) Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-SLT): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17(6):757–767CrossRef

41.

Faries MB et al (2017) Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med 376(23):2211–2222CrossRef

42.

Damude S et al (2016) The predictive power of serum S-100B for non-sentinel node positivity in melanoma patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 42(4):545–551CrossRef

43.

Wevers KP et al (2013) Assessment of a new scoring system for predicting non-sentinel node positivity in sentinel node-positive melanoma patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 39(2):179–184CrossRef

44.

van der Ploeg AP et al (2011) Prognosis in patients with sentinel node-positive melanoma is accurately defined by the combined Rotterdam tumor load and Dewar topography criteria. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2206–2214CrossRef

45.

Pastushenko I et al (2016) Increased angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in metastatic sentinel lymph nodes is associated with nonsentinel lymph node involvement and distant metastasis in patients with melanoma. Am J Dermatopathol 38(5):338–346CrossRef

46.

Veronesi U et al (1988) Thin stage I primary cutaneous malignant melanoma: comparison of excision with margins of 1 or 3 cm. N Engl J Med 318(18):1159–1162CrossRef

47.

Ringborg U et al (1996) Resection margins of 2 versus 5 cm for cutaneous malignant melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0.8 to 2.0 mm: randomized study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group. Cancer 77(9):1809–1814CrossRef

48.

Balch CM et al (2001) Long-term results of a prospective surgical trial comparing 2 cm vs. 4 cm excision margins for 740 patients with 1–4 mm melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol 8(2):101–108PubMed

49.

Thomas JM et al (2004) Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med 350(8):757–766CrossRef

50.

Gillgren P et al (2011) 2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 378(9803):1635–1642CrossRef

51.

Doepker MP et al (2016) Is a wider margin (2 cm vs. 1 cm) for a 1.01-2.0 mm melanoma necessary? Ann Surg Oncol 23(7):2336–2342CrossRef

52.

Hsueh EC et al (2017) Interim analysis of survival in a prospective, multi-center registry cohort of cutaneous melanoma tested with a prognostic 31-gene expression profile test. J Hematol Oncol 10(1):152CrossRef

53.

Zager JS et al (2018) Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients. BMC Cancer 18(1):130CrossRef

54.

Ferris LK et al (2017) Identification of high-risk cutaneous melanoma tumors is improved when combining the online American Joint Committee on Cancer Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool with a 31-gene expression profile-based classification. J Am Acad Dermatol 76(5):818–825 e3CrossRef

55.

Eggermont AM et al (2015) Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 16(5):522–530CrossRef

56.

Weber J et al (2017) Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med 377(19):1824–1835CrossRef

57.

Long GV et al (2017) Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 377(19):1813–1823CrossRef

58.

Wolchok JD et al (2017) Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 377(14):1345–1356CrossRef

59.

Hodi FS et al (2010) Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 363(8):711–723CrossRef

60.

Robert C et al (2015) Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med 372(26):2521–2532CrossRef

61.

Robert C et al (2015) Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med 372(1):30–39CrossRef

62.

Larkin J et al (2014) Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 371(20):1867–1876CrossRef

63.

Luke JJ et al (2017) Targeted agents and immunotherapies: optimizing outcomes in melanoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(8):463–482CrossRef

64.

Daud AI et al (2016) Programmed death-ligand 1 expression and response to the anti-programmed death 1 antibody pembrolizumab in melanoma. J Clin Oncol 34(34):4102–4109CrossRef

65.

Snyder A et al (2014) Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med 371(23):2189–2199CrossRef

66.

Johnson DB et al (2016) Targeted next generation sequencing identifies markers of response to PD-1 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res 4(11):959–967CrossRef

67.

Harlin H et al (2009) Chemokine expression in melanoma metastases associated with CD8 + T-cell recruitment. Cancer Res 69(7):3077–3085CrossRef

68.

Ji RR et al (2012) An immune-active tumor microenvironment favors clinical response to ipilimumab. Cancer Immunol Immunother 61(7):1019–1031CrossRef

69.

Gajewski TF, Schreiber H, Fu YX (2013) Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nat Immunol 14(10):1014–1022CrossRef

70.

Ayers M et al (2017) IFN-gamma-related mRNA profile predicts clinical response to PD-1 blockade. J Clin Invest 127(8):2930–2940CrossRef

Title: Review of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in melanoma
Authors: Jacob S. Ankeny
Brian Labadie
Jason Luke
Eddy Hsueh
Jane Messina
Jonathan S. Zager
Publication date: 01-08-2018
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Clinical & Experimental Metastasis / Issue 5-6/2018
Print ISSN: 0262-0898
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7276
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-018-9892-z

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5-6/2018

Genetics of metastasis: melanoma and other cancers

Metastatic gynecologic malignancies: advances in treatment and management

Lymphangiogenesis, lymphatic systemomics, and cancer: context, advances and unanswered questions

The role of radiation therapy in the treatment of metastatic cancer

Editorial

Novel frontiers in detecting cancer metastasis

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer