Sophia Haywood1, Jennifer Garioch1,2, Arjun Ramaiya1,3, Marc Moncrieff4,5. 1. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 2. Department of Dermatology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. 3. Cotman Centre of Cellular Pathology, Norwich Research Park, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. 4. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. marc.moncrieff@nnuh.nhs.uk. 5. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. marc.moncrieff@nnuh.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma in-transit metastases (ITMs) are a challenge to treat and associated with systemic disease and poor prognosis. Topical diphencyprone (DPCP), a potent contact sensitizer, is an established treatment for melanoma ITMs. This exploratory study investigated the utility of BRAF mutation status, CD8, PD-1, PD-L1, and TILs distribution as biomarkers for response of ITMs to topical immunotherapy (DPCP). METHODS: The ITM deposits of 40 patients treated with DPCP were subjected to biomarker analysis for BRAF status, CD8 and PD-1 expression on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and tumor PD-L1 expression. Response to DPCP and overall survival (OS) were compared by biomarker status. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, 10 patients (25%) had a complete response, 12 patients (30%) had a partial response, and 18 patients (45%) had no response. No significant association was found between any individual biomarker and response to DPCP or OS. The BRAF mutation rate was 25% (10/40). All the patients with a complete response had BRAF wild-type tumor. Peritumoral CD8+ T-cells were associated with complete response (P = 0.041). Both CD8+ and PD-1 expressions were highly correlated (P < 0.0001), and the highest levels of PD-1 expression were detected at the peritumoral interface (P = 0.0004). Only two cases were PD-L1-positive, and both had a complete response to DPCP (P = 0.043). CONCLUSION: Patients who have BRAF wild-type tumor are more likely to experience a complete response to DPCP. Peritumoral TILs and PD-1 expressions may predict a better response to DPCP. Expression of PD-L1 may be associated with a complete response to DPCP. A larger prospective study is required.
BACKGROUND:Melanoma in-transit metastases (ITMs) are a challenge to treat and associated with systemic disease and poor prognosis. Topical diphencyprone (DPCP), a potent contact sensitizer, is an established treatment for melanoma ITMs. This exploratory study investigated the utility of BRAF mutation status, CD8, PD-1, PD-L1, and TILs distribution as biomarkers for response of ITMs to topical immunotherapy (DPCP). METHODS: The ITM deposits of 40 patients treated with DPCP were subjected to biomarker analysis for BRAF status, CD8 and PD-1 expression on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and tumorPD-L1 expression. Response to DPCP and overall survival (OS) were compared by biomarker status. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, 10 patients (25%) had a complete response, 12 patients (30%) had a partial response, and 18 patients (45%) had no response. No significant association was found between any individual biomarker and response to DPCP or OS. The BRAF mutation rate was 25% (10/40). All the patients with a complete response had BRAF wild-type tumor. Peritumoral CD8+ T-cells were associated with complete response (P = 0.041). Both CD8+ and PD-1 expressions were highly correlated (P < 0.0001), and the highest levels of PD-1 expression were detected at the peritumoral interface (P = 0.0004). Only two cases were PD-L1-positive, and both had a complete response to DPCP (P = 0.043). CONCLUSION:Patients who have BRAF wild-type tumor are more likely to experience a complete response to DPCP. Peritumoral TILs and PD-1 expressions may predict a better response to DPCP. Expression of PD-L1 may be associated with a complete response to DPCP. A larger prospective study is required.
Authors: T Read; S Webber; J Tan; M Wagels; H Schaider; H P Soyer; B M Smithers Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Paolo A Ascierto; Georgina V Long; Caroline Robert; Benjamin Brady; Caroline Dutriaux; Anna Maria Di Giacomo; Laurent Mortier; Jessica C Hassel; Piotr Rutkowski; Catriona McNeil; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Kerry J Savage; Micaela M Hernberg; Celeste Lebbé; Julie Charles; Catalin Mihalcioiu; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Cornelia Mauch; Francesco Cognetti; Lars Ny; Ana Arance; Inge Marie Svane; Dirk Schadendorf; Helen Gogas; Abdel Saci; Joel Jiang; Jasmine Rizzo; Victoria Atkinson Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Keith T Flaherty; Igor Puzanov; Kevin B Kim; Antoni Ribas; Grant A McArthur; Jeffrey A Sosman; Peter J O'Dwyer; Richard J Lee; Joseph F Grippo; Keith Nolop; Paul B Chapman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew P Barbour; Yue Hang Tang; Nicola Armour; Ken Dutton-Regester; Lutz Krause; Kelly A Loffler; Duncan Lambie; Bryan Burmeister; Janine Thomas; B Mark Smithers; Nicholas K Hayward Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 9.162