Improved Risk Prediction Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity in Patients With Melanoma: The Melanoma Institute Australia Nomogram

PURPOSE For patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, the risk of sentinel node (SN) metastasis varies according to several clinicopathologic parameters. Patient selection for SN biopsy can be assisted by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and ASCO/Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guidelines and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) online nomogram. We sought to develop an improved online risk calculator using alternative clinicopathologic parameters to more accurately predict SN positivity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from 3,477 patients with melanoma who underwent SN biopsy at Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) were analyzed. A new nomogram was developed by replacing body site and Clark level from the MSKCC model with mitotic rate, melanoma subtype, and lymphovascular invasion. The predictive performance of the new nomogram was externally validated using data from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 3,496). RESULTS The MSKCC model receiver operating characteristic curve had a predictive accuracy of 67.7% (95% CI, 65.3% to 70.0%). The MIA model had a predictive accuracy of 73.9% (95% CI, 71.9% to 75.9%), a 9.2% increase in accuracy over the MSKCC model (P < .001). Among the 2,748 SN-negative patients, SN biopsy would not have been offered to 22.1%, 13.4%, and 12.4% based on the MIA model, the MSKCC model, and NCCN or ASCO/SSO criteria, respectively. External validation generated a C-statistic of 75.0% (95% CI, 73.2% to 76.7%). CONCLUSION A robust nomogram was developed that more accurately estimates the risk of SN positivity in patients with melanoma than currently available methods. The model only requires the input of 6 widely available clinicopathologic parameters. Importantly, the number of patients undergoing unnecessary SN biopsy would be significantly reduced compared with use of the MSKCC nomogram or the NCCN or ASCO/SSO guidelines, without losing sensitivity. An online calculator is available at www.melanomarisk.org.au.Supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (R.A.S), an Australia NHMRC program grant (to R.A.S., G.J.M., and J.F.T.), the Medical Foundation of the University of Sydney (J.F.T.), Melanoma Institute Australia (J.R.S., R.P.M.S., and S.N.L.), the Friends of the Mater Foundation (A.J.S.), an Australian Medical Research Future Fund Rapid Applied Research Translation Grant via Sydney Health Partners (A.H.R.V.), the Robert and Lynne Grossman Family Foundation (J.E.G.), the Michael and Patricia Booker Melanoma Research Endowment (J.E.G.), the National Institutes of Health Specialized Programs of Research Excellence grant in melanoma at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Re-defining the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma in the era of effective systemic therapies

Although previously the mainstay of treatment, the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma has changed with the advent of effective systemic therapies (most notably immunotherapy). Contemporary treatment options for patients with asymptomatic solitary or oligo-metastases include upfront surgery followed by adjuvant immunotherapy or upfront immunotherapy with salvage surgery as required. For suspected solitary or oligo-metastases, surgery serves both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Advances in radiological technology allow metastases to be detected earlier and surgery to be less morbid. Surgical morbidities are generally more tolerable than serious immune-related adverse effects, but surgery may be less effective. Upfront immunotherapy ensures that futile surgery is not offered for rapidly progressive disease. It also provides an opportunity to assess response to treatment, which predicts outcome, and may obviate the need for surgery. However, it is important not to miss a window of opportunity for surgical intervention, whereby if disease progresses on immunotherapy it becomes unresectable. In situations where local therapy is recommended but surgery is not desired, stereotactic radiosurgery may be an effective alternative. The decision-making process regarding upfront surgery versus immunotherapy needs to take place within a specialist melanoma multidisciplinary setting and be customised to individual patient and tumour factors. Ultimately, high-level clinical trial evidence is required to resolve uncertainties in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma but the complexity of the varying presentations may make trial design challenging

Epigenetic regulator genes direct lineage switching in MLL/AF4 leukaemia

The fusion gene MLL/AF4 defines a high-risk subtype of pro-B acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Relapse can be associated with a lineage switch from acute lymphoblastic to acute myeloid leukaemia resulting in poor clinical outcomes due to resistance towards chemo- and immuno-therapies. Here we show that the myeloid relapses share oncogene fusion breakpoints with their matched lymphoid presentations and can originate from varying differentiation stages from immature progenitors through to committed B-cell precursors. Lineage switching is linked to substantial changes in chromatin accessibility and rewiring of transcriptional programmes, including alternative splicing. These findings indicate that the execution and maintenance of lymphoid lineage differentiation is impaired. The relapsed myeloid phenotype is recurrently associated with the altered expression, splicing or mutation of chromatin modifiers, including CHD4 coding for the ATPase/helicase of the nucleosome remodelling and deacetylation complex, NuRD. Perturbation of CHD4 alone or in combination with other mutated epigenetic modifiers induces myeloid gene expression in MLL/AF4-positive cell models indicating that lineage switching in MLL/AF4 leukaemia is driven and maintained by disrupted epigenetic regulation