Australasian Division of the International Academy of Pathology
Vincent McGovern Memorial Lecture Sydney June 2013
Richard A Scolyer MD FRCPA FRCPath Senior Staff Pathologist, Tissue Pathology & Diagnostic Oncology,
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Co-Director of Research, Melanoma Institute Australia,
Clinical Professor, Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Fighting Australia’s National Cancer: Progress to Date & Future Prospects
Founding President of Australasian Division IAP (1973-78)
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
Melanoma in Australia
• Melanoma is a major public health problem
• Australia has highest incidence worldwide
Melanoma incidence
0 10 20 30 40
Po
pu
lati
on
Incidence per 100,000
Hong Kong
S Thames
Florence
Denmark
Zurich
Norway
US Atlanta
NZ
Aus
62.9 / 51.3
59.9 / 37.4
31 / 24.4
QLD
NSW
VIC
Melanoma Incidence Rates (/100,000, M/F)
Melanoma in Australia: 1996-2009
Men Women
Incidence ↑22% ↑17%
Mortality ↑16% ↑6
Contrasts with ↓mortality rates for most other solid cancers in
Australia during this period
Melanoma: Dimensions of the Problem
• 3rd most common cancer in both men and women in Australia
• Overall life time risk of 5.8%
• >10,000 new cases annually
• 1,200 Australians die of melanoma each year
• “Australia’s National Cancer”
Melanoma: Dimensions of the Problem
• Commonest cancer in
– Men: 15-50 years
– Women: 15-35 years
• Therefore has a disproportionate impact on most productive years of life
Melanoma Disease Control
Prevention Early Diagnosis & Treatment
Treatment of Metastatic Disease
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
UV Damages DNA
Melanoma Risk Factors
High
Risk
Lower
Risk
Sun Smart Behaviour • Avoid outdoor activities in middle of day
• Physical barriers
– Shade protection
– Clothes
– Hat
• Sun screen (50+ BS)
• Need some exposure (Vit D)
1980 Public Health Campaign
Sunbed use causes 16% of melanomas in those aged 18-29 yr
Sunbed use causes 76% of all melanomas in 18-29 years who ever used a sunbed
Cust AE, et al. Int J Cancer. 2011 May 15;128(10):2425-35
States with sun bed bans
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
• Diagnostics:
Evolution of Dermoscopy Kerry Crotty Scott Menzies
Sequential digital dermoscopy imaging - time often tells
melanoma
3 months
Principle: any lesion that is changing over a 3 months
should be excised
99.6% of the lesions that do not change over 3 months
are not melanoma
Altamura D,. Arch. Dermatol. 144(4), 502–506 (2008).
benign
3 months
Total Body Photography
Patients with multiple
naevi or very high risk
for primary melanoma
Digital Images:
Reference for both
- clinician
- patient self monitoring
Reflectance Confocal Microscopy
Optical biopsy
Particularly useful in
assessing Lentigo Maligna
Pascale Guitera
200-250um max.
Horizontal section
i
w i
e
CONFOCAL HISTOLOGY
epidermis
dermis
In-Vivo Confocal
vs. H&E Histological
Horizontal sections
Melanin back scattered the light= bright cells
H&E (enface, greyscale)
• 58 yr female: • Lentigo Maligna Melanoma
• (Breslow 0.3mm)
• amelanotic insitu tumour extended to excision margins
Confocal Imaging: Lentigo Maligna
Extent of abnormal melanocytes by CM
Surgical margin indicated by CM Following repair
New pic macro & micro & quote results Judy’s study
Grogan J, Cooper CL, McCarthy SW, Menzies SW, Scolyer RA. Punch scoring improves
clinicopathologic correlation in evaluating pigmented lesions: a review of 45 cases (in preparation)
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
Gold standard = Pathology
Gold standard = Pathology
Gold standard = Clinical Behaviour
Goal of Pathological Assessment
• Predict clinical outcome/behaviour of tumour
– From histopathological features
– Small part of lesion
– Static point in time
Pathological Assessment
• Routine pathol: dx most melanocytic lesions
– Accurately
– Quickly
– Reproducibly
• Small subset cause diagnostic problems
Why Can Melanocytic Path Be Difficult ?
• Diagnostic criteria
– Architectural
– Cytological
– Host response
• Each criterion can occur in naevi & melanoma
• Diagnosis (opinion) rests on
– Balancing criteria
– Awareness of pitfalls
– Correlating with clinical data
McCarthy SW, Scolyer RA. Pitfalls and important issues in the diagnosis of melanocytic
tumours. The Oschner Journal; 2010: 10:66–74
Pathological Diagnosis is Therefore Subjective
Grey Zones / “Borderline Lesions” Superficial Atypical Melanocytic Proliferations
Deep Dermal Atypical Proliferations
Superficial Atypical Melanocytic Proliferations
• Nearly all patients cured by complete excision
• Wide local excision with narrow (0.5-1cm) margins usually minimal morbidity
• Resolve most by careful CPC
Deep Dermal Atypical Proliferations
• Prognosis naevus v melanoma vastly different
• Mx per melanoma? – Morbidity WLE?
– Sentinel node bx?
– Counselling re
• Prognosis
• Follow up
• More difficult to resolve
• New molecular techniques may be helpful
Ng JC, et al. Impact of partial biopsy on histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma. Archives Dermatol 2010 Mar;146(3):234-9
• Victoria Melanoma Service 1995-2006: 2470 pts
• ↑ odds ratio pathologic misdiagnosis – Punch bx 16.6 (p<0.001)
– Shave bx 2.6 (p=0.02)
• Punch bx: OR 20 (p<0.001) misdx + adverse outcome
Incomplete Biopsies of Melanocytic
Lesions: WARNINGS!
• Be careful when reporting incomplete biopsies
• Any atypical features: be cautious in report
• “Complete ex & reassess may be advisable”
Scolyer RA, Prieto VG. Melanoma pathology: important issues for clinicians involved in the
multidisciplinary care of melanoma patients. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2011 Jan;20(1):19-37
Diagnostic Pitfalls
Naevi Mimicking Melanoma
• Spitz naevus
• Deep penetrating naevus
• Acral naevus
• Combined naevus
Melanomas Prone to Misdiagnosis
• Desmoplastic melanoma
• Acral melanoma
• Spitzoid melanoma
• Naevoid melanoma
Thigh: DPN F35 Acral Naevus
Both this bx and
another 1 year
previously reported as
non-specific
inflammation
Desmoplastic
melanoma
Naevoid Melanoma: Architecture
• Nodular (or verrucous) with no RGP
• Circumscribed
• Basically symmetrical
• Pagetoid spread minimal or absent
• Long thin rete ridges
• Subtle asymmetry
• “Pseudomaturation”
• Expansile or sheet-like growth
Lower leg
Naevoid Melanoma
An Approach to Ambiguous Cases
• Give a preferred diagnosis but acknowledge degree of uncertainty
• Further opinions should be sought
• “Don’t sweep doubt under the carpet”
• Danger “UMP” becomes a wastebasket
• Complete excision probably mandatory
• Avoid SLNB
Scolyer RA, Murali R, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF. 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. 2010 Dec;134(12):1770-7.
Tools for Resolving Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Tumours
• Molecular testing offers potential to identify tumour subgroups & predict their likely clinical course – CGH
– FISH
– PCR- BRAF, NRAS, HRAS
– Proteomics
– Immunochemistry
• Aim to find a molecular signature(s) to serve as diagnostic tool in differentiating melanoma from naevus
• OFTEN NOT DEFINITIVE MELANOMA
• WE STILL NEED BETTER TOOLS
Male 6yo
copy number gains at 6p25 homozygous deletions at 9p21
Developed distant metastases (including brain)
Importance of Histopathological Reporting
• Melanoma pathology report should
– Document the key diagnostic criteria on which the diagnosis was based
– Provide the pathological parameters important for prognosis & management
Cox regression analysis for 10,233
melanoma patients with localized melanoma
including mitotic rate
Variable Chi-square values
(1 d.f.) P HR
95%
CI
Tumor thickness 84.6 <0.0001 1.25 1.91 – 1.31
Mitotic Rate 79.1 <0.0001 1.26 1.20 – 1.32
Ulceration 47.2 <0.0001 1.56 1.38 – 1.78
Age 40.8 <0.0001 1.16 1.11 – 1.22
Gender 32.4 <0.0001 0.70 0.62 – 0.79
Site 29.1 <0.0001 1.38 1.23 – 1.54
Clark Level 8.2 0.0041 1.15 1.04 – 1.26
Melanoma of the Skin, 7th Edition AJCC Manual for Staging of Cancer –2010.
Cox regression analysis for 10,233
melanoma patients with localized melanoma
including mitotic rate
Variable Chi-square values
(1 d.f.) P HR
95%
CI
Tumor thickness 84.6 <0.0001 1.25 1.91 – 1.31
Mitotic Rate 79.1 <0.0001 1.26 1.20 – 1.32
Ulceration 47.2 <0.0001 1.56 1.38 – 1.78
Age 40.8 <0.0001 1.16 1.11 – 1.22
Gender 32.4 <0.0001 0.70 0.62 – 0.79
Site 29.1 <0.0001 1.38 1.23 – 1.54
Clark Level 8.2 0.0041 1.15 1.04 – 1.26
Melanoma of the Skin, 7th Edition AJCC Manual for Staging of Cancer –2010.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
SURVIVAL (years)
0 (n=807)
PR
OP
OR
TIO
N O
F S
UR
VIV
ING
1- 4 (n=1828)
5-10 (n=715)
(>=11 (n=311)
P value
Overall <.0001
(1) vs (2) <.0001
(1) vs (3) <.0001
(1) vs (4) <.0001
(2) vs (3) <.0001
(2) vs (4) <.0001
(3) vs (4) .0009
Results Mitotic Rate
Phase 2: Retrospective Analysis of Vince McGovern’s Work
• Performed the 1st detailed analyses assessing the prognostic importance of histopathologic features of melanomas
• Reviewed a very large number of melanomas during his career
Vincent McGovern 1915-1983
Francken et al. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11: 426-33.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
PR
OP
OR
TIO
N S
UR
VIV
ING
Mitosis 0/5 HPF (n=581)
Mitosis 1-4/5 HPF (n=455)
Mitosis 5 or more/5 HPF (n=281)
P-valueOverall <0.0001
SURVIVAL TIME (years)
Results
Phase 2: Methods
• VJMcG followed recommendations of 1972 International Pigment Cell Conference in determining TMR
• Average no. mitoses in at least 10 HPF determines and expressed as no. mitoses/5HPF
• Coded as – 1: 0 mitoses /5HPF
– 2: 1-4 mitoses / 5HPF
– 3: >=5 mitoses /5HPF
Phase
• Problem in converting his TMR grade to TMR per mm2
• His papers state he used magnification of X 320
• Need to determine HPF area of the microscope he used
Pathologic
feature
Whole group MIA
Pathologists
Non-MIA
Pathologists
Breslow thickness 0.96 0.95 0.94
Tumor Mitotic
Rate
0.76 0.72 0.80
Clark level 0.60 0.56 0.59
Ulceration 0.83 0.91 0.73
Pathologic
feature
Whole group MIA
Pathologists
Non-MIA
Pathologists
Breslow thickness 0.96 0.95 0.94
Tumor Mitotic
Rate
0.76 0.72 0.80
Clark level 0.60 0.56 0.59
Ulceration 0.83 0.91 0.73
AJCC: Recommended Method for Mitotic Rate Enumeration
• Find area with most mitoses (“hot spot”)
• Extend to adjacent HPF until 1mm2 assessed
• If no “hot spot”: start in field with a mitosis
• Express MR as no./mm2
Early Regression= TILs
Intermediate Regression= Angiofibroplasia
Late Regresssion
Multipanel Figure Illustrating TIL Grades
TIL Grade 0 TIL Grade 1
TIL Grade 2 TIL Grade 3
TIL Grade 2 TIL Grade 3
Sentinel
Node
Status
TIL grade
0 1 2 3 Total P value
Negative 299 406 147 34 886 0.0001
Positive 111 95 29 2 237 % Positive 27.1 19.0 16.5 5.6 100
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Performed in 1123 (60%) patients
Scolyer RA*, Azimi F*, Moncrieff M, Rumcheva P, Murali R, McCarthy SW, Saw RP, Thompson JF. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte grade (TIL grade) is an independent predictor of sentinel lymph
node status and survival in cutaneous melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol July 2012
Scolyer RA*, Azimi F*, et al. J Clin Oncol July 2012
Melanoma-specific survival Recurrence-free survival
Factors predicting melanoma-specific survival
Variable
Hazard
Ratio
95% Confidence
Intervals
Test
Statistic p value
Melanoma-Specific
Survival
Mitotic Rate 1.02 1.01-1.04 9.13 0.003
Satellitosis 2.70 1.64-4.43 15.38 <0.0001
Ulceration 2.38 1.80-3.14 37.42 <0.0001
Gender * 1.45 1.09-1.92 6.65 0.01
Breslow Thickness 1.10 1.07-1.12 74.90 <0.0001
TIL Grade ** 0.66 0.55-0.79 20.58 <0.0001
Age at Diagnosis - - - NS * Female as reference value
** TIL grade 0 as reference value
Survival in SLNB Patients
Variable Hazard Ratio 95% Confidence
Intervals Wald Statistic p value
Melanoma-Specific Survival* Sentinel node positive 3.62 2.56-5.12 53.25 <0.0001 Satellitosis 2.65 1.43-4.93 9.49 0.002 Ulceration 2.38 1.88-3.80 29.78 <0.0001 Breslow Thickness 1.08 1.04-1.11 18.20 <0.0001 TIL Grade 0.74 0.58-0.94 6.26 0.012 Recurrence-Free Survival**
Sentinel node positive 3.51 2.66-4.63 78.73 <0.0001 Satellitosis 2.10 1.24-3.55 7.57 0.006 Ulceration 1.98 1.51-2.61 23.70 <0.0001 Age at Diagnosis 1.02 1.01-1.03 14.66 0.0001 Breslow Thickness 1.06 1.03-1.09 15.37 <0.0001 TIL Grade 0.82 0.68-0.99 4.24 0.04
* Mitotic rate, age at diagnosis and gender were not significant ** Mitotic rate and gender were not significant
P<0.0001
Melanoma-specific survival N (% of ulcerated cases)
5-year survival 10-year survival
Ulceration
Absent 4126 91.30% 81.10%
Present 519 77.60% 62.40%
Extent of ulceration categorized as diameter 519 (100%)
≤ 5.00 mm 386 (74.4%) 82.70% 69.10%
> 5.00 mm 133 (25.6%) 59.30% 33.00%
Extent of ulceration categorized as percentage 216 (100%)
≤ 70% 162 (75.0%) 80.40% 67.30%
>70% 54 (25.0%) 66.40% 37.90%
Melanoma-specific Survival Rates
ICCR Primary Invasive Melanoma Protocol • Required elements
– Breslow thickness
– Ulceration
– Mitotic rate
– Lymphovascular invasion
– Satellites
– Desmoplastic component
– Neurotropism
– Margins
• Insitu
• Invasive (peripheral & deep)
– AJCC staging • pT
• pN
• Recommended elements
– Melanoma subtype
– Extent of ulceration
– Clark level
– TILs
– Regression (intermediate & late)
– Associated melanocytic lesion
DATASET FOR PATHOLOGY REPORTING OF CUTANEOUS INVASIVE MELANOMA: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
THE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION OF CANCER REPORTING (ICCR)
Richard A. Scolyer MD, FRCPA, FRCPath1,2,4, Meagan J. Judge BSc, DipEd6, Alan Evans BMedBiol, MD, FRCPath7, David
P. Frishberg MD8, Victor G. Prieto MD, PhD9, John F. Thompson MD, FRACS, FACS1,3,5, Martin J. Trotter MD, PhD,
FRCPC10, Maureen Y. Walsh MB, FRCPath11, Noreen M.G. Walsh MD, FRCPC, FRCPath12, David W. Ellis MBBS, FRCPA13
Am J Surg Pathol (in press)
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/cp68
RECOMMENDED EXCISION MARGINS
• Melanoma insitu: 5mm
• Melanoma BT <1.0mm: 1cm
• Melanoma BT 1-2mm: 1-2cm
• Melanoma BT >2mm: 2-3cm
What about SLN biopsy?
SLN status • Strongest predictor of outcome
• Most accurate staging method available
Breslow % + SLN
<0.75 <5%
0.75-1.0 5-10%
1.0-4.0 15-25%
>4.0 30-40%
Recommendations for SLNB
• ANZ melanoma guidelines: discuss BT >1mm
• MIA:
– Offered BT >1mm
– BT 0.75-1.0mm if ulcerated, MR>2/mm2, (<45yo)
– Histological ambiguous tumours: avoid SLNB
Picture naevus cells in capsule and mm
Naevus Cells in Capsule Melanoma Cells
HMB45 HMB45
SNB: Problems in Interpretation
• Occas single MelanA or HMB45+ cells- signif?
• Suggest be careful not to over interpret them as melanoma if no corroborative evidence
MelanA
HMB45
3 Important Questions Unanswered
• significance of very small SN deposits?
• Do all SN+ patients require CLND?
• Optimal protocol for SLNB
• Long term follow-up & MSLT-II & Minitub
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
Systemic Treatments
• Major advances in Rx advanced stage disease since 2009
• 2 classes of effective therapy
1. Targeted therapies
2. Immunotherapies
Traditional Clinicopathological Classification
• Current (2006) WHO classification of melanoma lists 4 main melanoma subtypes – Superficial spreading melanoma
– Nodular melanoma
– Lentigo maligna melanoma
– Acral lentiginous melanoma
• 1972 Sydney classification – Based on work McGovern, Clark, Mihm, Reed, Cochran & others
McGovern VJ, Mihm MC, Bailly C, Cochran A, et al. The classification of
malignant melanoma and its histologic reporting. Cancer 1973;32:1446-1457.
Melanoma Subtypes: Traditional Clinicopathologic Classification
SUPERFICIAL SPREADING MELANOMA - most common
• Mean age 40s
• Large number of melanocytic naevi & more than a few dysplastic naevi strong risk factors
• Linked to intermittent UV exposure & sunburns
NODULAR MELANOMA – 15%
• Older people, esp. men
• More common on head & neck
• > 50% amelanotic (red or pink)
LENTIGO MALIGNA MELANOMA – 10–15%
• Older people, esp. outdoor workers
• More common on head & neck
• Linked to large cumulative doses of UV exposure
• Hutchinson’s melanotic freckle = lentigo maligna = premalignant
ACRAL LENTIGINOUS MELANOMA – 1–3%
• Equally common in people with dark skin
• Acral skin of palms & soles
• May have no relationship with UV exposure
Thompson JF, Scolyer RA, Kefford RF. Cutaneous melanoma. The Lancet 2005; 365: 687-701
Melanoma Classification in the 21st Century
• Move towards a molecular-based classification
• Recent discovery of critical somatic mutations
• >80% MAPK pathway
• Exploitation of mutations as therapeutic targets
• Revolutionizing patient management
Boris Bastian
Benign
Borderline
Malignant
Site
Epithelium associated
High UV
CSD Desmopl.
melanoma
Glabrous Mucosa
Acral melanoma
Mucosal melanoma
Low UV
Acquired nevus
Dysplastic nevus
Non-CSD melanoma
Spitz nevus
Atypical Spitz
tumor
Spitzoid melanoma
BRAF
NRAS
HRAS
KIT
Benign
Borderline
Malignant
Site
Non-epithelium associated
Skin
Congenital nevus
Melanoma in CN
Blue nevus
Atyical blue nevus
Blue nevus like melanoma
Internal organs
Melanoma
Melano-cytoma
Eye
Uveal melanoma
Uveal nevus
GNAQ
GNA11
NRAS
Image courtesy of Grant McArthur, Peter MacCallum Cancer
Institute, Melbourne
Day 1 Day 15
FDG-PET response to vemurafenib V600E+ melanoma
Flaherty KT, et al N Engl J Med 363:809, 2010
RAF
P
P
MEK
P
ERK
RTK
Cell Responses
SOS
GRB2
P P P
ATP
P
Normal Cell - MAPK Pathway
RAS
Cellular Proliferation, Survival, Migration
PI3K
P
Akt
P
mTOR
P
RAS
RAF
P P
P
MEK
ERK
P
RTK
Cell Responses
SOS
GRB2
Mutated BRAF
Cellular Proliferation, Survival, Migration
P
BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib
dabrafenib
LGX 818
BRAF Mutations
• In about 50% of primary melanomas
• Assoc with
– Young patient age
– Low cumulative solar damage
– Trunk or limb primary site
– Characteristic pathological features
Bauer J, Büttner P, Murali R, Okamoto I, Kolaitis NA, Landi MT, Scolyer RA, Bastian BC. BRAF mutations in
cutaneous melanoma are independently associated with age, anatomic site of the primary tumor and the degree
of solar elastosis at the primary tumor site. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2011 Apr;24(2):345-51.
BRAFoma
“BRAFoma”
Long GV, Menzies AM, Nagrial AM, Haydu LE, Hamilton AL, Mann GJ, Hughes TM, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA,
Kefford RF. Prognostic and Clinicopathologic Associations of Oncogenic BRAF in Metastatic Melanoma. J Clin
Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1239-46.
48% metastatic
melanoma carry
BRAF mutation
No specific metastatic
phenotype, other
than youth
Poorer prognosis from
diagnosis met mel,
not prognostic for
primary
LYS VAL/V THR ALA SER
598 599 600 601 602
G T G G C T A A G A C C T C T
LYS GLU/E THR ALA SER
G A G G C T A A G A C C T C T
Mutation = V600E
LYS VAL/V THR ALA SER
598 599 600 601 602
G T G G C T A A G A C C T C T
LYS LYS/K THR ALA SER
A A G G C T A A G A C C T C T
Mutation = V600K
BRAF Mutation N=308
V600E
73%
V600K
19%
Other BRAF
genotypes
8%
BRAF WT
54%
BRAF Mut
46%
BRAF Mut
46%
Cutaneous 86%
Occult 10%
Mucosal 2%
Acral 2%
A. M. Menzies, L. E. Haydu, L. Visintin, M. S. Carlino, J. R. Howle, J. F. Thompson, R. F. Kefford, R. A. Scolyer, and G. V. Long CCR 2012
BRAF Rate by Decade N=308
0
25
50
75
100
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 >70
90% V600E 55% V600E
20% V600K
Menzies AM, Haydu LE, Visintin L, Carlino MS, Howle JR, Thompson JF, Kefford RF, Scolyer RA, Long GV. Age and Chronic Sun
Damage Predict BRAF Genotype in BRAF-mutant Metastatic Melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Jun 15;18(12):3242-9
Dabrafenib Best unconfirmed response : V600K (BREAK-2)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Max
imu
m %
red
uct
ion
fro
m b
ase
line
M1c M1a M1 M1b
Scans unavailable for 1 patient
M-Stage at screening Missing
Trefzer U et al SMR 2011
Mutation Testing: Issues for Discussion
1. When should a BRAF test be performed?
2. Which specimen to test (primary v metastasis)?
3. What type of tissue is required?
4. Which technique for mutation testing?
1. When should a BRAF test be performed?
• Planning treatment for metastatic disease
– Unresectable AJCC stage III
– AJCC stage IV
2. Which specimen to test? (primary v metastasis)
• BRAF concordance primary v’s metastasis
– Yes: 80%-96% (Colombino et al J Clin Oncol 2012)
best
• distant metastatic tissue (most recent)
then
• locoregional/in-transit metastasis
last
• primary melanoma
3. What type of specimen is required?
• Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue ok (don’t require fresh tissue)
• Biopsy with high % tumour cell content best
• Core biopsies & FNA cell blocks often ok
X X
Sensitivity of Mutation Tests
Technical Sensitivity
Diagnostic Sensitivity /
Comprehensiveness
HIGH
Detect mutations
<1% tumour
(Risk false +)
LOW
eg Need >25% tumour
(Risk false negaives)
HIGH All mutations
(rare mutations of
unknown significance)
LOW Targeted
common
mutations only
(Risk false
negatives)
Diagnostic Sensitivity /
Comprehensiveness
4. The Ideal Mutation Assay
Next Generation Sequencing • Sensitive and comprehensive • Advantages
– Fully sequence many genes (100s-1000s) in a single test – Simultaneously detect translocations, base substitutions,
deletions, insertions, copy no. changes in cancer-related genes
• Challenges – $ Infrastructure cost – Bioinformatics – loads of data – Interpretation – TAT ~7-14d for multiplex (>100-gene) cancer genome
sequence , but expected to improve++
Wilmott et al Molecular Cancer Therapeutic 2012 Dec; 11:2704-8
pERK
Ki67
Cyclin D1
V600E Antibody - VE1
BRAF
wt
BRAF
V600K
BRAF
V600E
Long GV, Wilmott JS, Capper D, Preusser M, Thompson JF, Kefford RF, von Deimling A, Scolyer RA.
Immunohistochemistry is highly sensitive and specific for the detection of V600E BRAF mutation in
melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2013 Jan;37(1):61-5
BRAF V600E
37
97 melanoma metastases
DNA mutation testing HRM Sanger sequence
Non-V600E
10
BRAF WT
50
VE1 IHC +
35
VE1 IHC -
2
VE1 IHC -
47
VE1 IHC +
3
All
VE1 IHC -
Re-sequenced
K601Q
1
FNAB
1
PCR-mass spec
V600E
2
Lymph node
isolated VE1
1
Long, Wilmott, Capper, Preusser Zhang, Thompson, Kefford,
von Deimling, Scolyer, Am J of Surg Path, 2013
V600E Antibody - VE1
Isolated staining within LN
Molecular testing BRAFwt
Molecular testing initially
BRAF WT
FNAB – BRAF V600E
By molecular methods
Long – Wilmott & Scolyer et al AJSP 2013 Jan;37(1):61-5
BRAF Antibody • Detects V600E BRAF mutations
– Accurate
– Rapid
– Cost effective method
• Facilitates rapid triage into Rx pathways
• Does not detect non-V600E mutations (Cobas)
• MIA: all patients undergoing mutation testing
BRAFi Cutaneous Reactions
• Grover’s disease
• Hyperkeratotic lesions
• KA/SCC
Cellular Proliferation, Survival, Migration
BRAF I
RAS
BRAFwt Keratinocyte
CRAF
MHC
TCR
Blocking CTLA-4 ligation
enhances T-cell responses
Ipilimumab
T cell
CTLA-4
APC
T-cell activation
B7
CD28
Immunopotentiating Agents
Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) & PD-1 inhibitors stimulate immune system to destroy melanoma cells
Anti-PD1
Anti-PD-L
Biopsy BEFORE Treat with trial drug Biopsy AFTER 7days Biopsy PROGRESSION
Examine for biomarkers of response and resistance
PRE POST PROG
“TEAM” Protocol Treat Excise Analyse Melanoma
J Wilmott, G V Long & R A Scolyer CCR 2012
CD8 CD4 Lymphocytes
PRE
EDT - Responding Day 7
Progression
Cellular Proliferation, Survival, Migration
PI3K
Akt
mTOR
MEK inhibitors
ERK inhibitor
BRAF inhibitors PI3K inhibitors
AKT inhibitors
mTOR inhibitors
PD-1
Ipilimumab
Cell cycle inhibitors
Tumor microenvironment inhibit
Outline • “Australia’s National Cancer”
• Multipronged strategy for disease control
– Prevention
– Early detection, Dx & Rx
• New diagnostic techniques
• Accurate pathological dx
• Rx of primary tumour
– Rx of metastatic disease
Conclusions
• Pathology remains critical to melanoma disease control
• Despite recent advances in Rx
• Metastatic melanoma remains a bad disease
• Must continue to raise the bar higher
Vincent McGovern 1915-1983
Stan McCarthy John Thompson
Vincent McGovern
Kerry Crotty Bill McCarthy
Gerry Milton
Acknowledgements
• Tissue Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (alphabetic order)
– Lyndal Anderson – Caroline Cooper – Wendy Cooper – Oana Crainic – Ruta Gupta – Rooshdiya Karim – James Kench – Soon Lee – Annabelle Mahar – Stan McCarthy – Catriona McKenzie – Paul McKenzie – Sandra O’Toole – Elizabeth Robbins – Geoff Watson
– Julia Pagliuso – Others
• Melanoma Institute Australia – John Thompson – Jon Stretch – Georgina Long – Rick Kefford – Others
• Others – Kerry Crotty – Bill McCarthy – Scott Menzies
• Research Funding Support – Cancer Institute NSW – NHMRC – Melanoma Foundation of the
University of Sydney
Cameron Fellowship in Melanoma Pathology
• Based in Tissue Pathology at RPAH
• Aims
– Additional experience in skin pathology reporting
– Participation in translational research
• Applications
– Close: 7th September 2013
• Australian Speakers • Haematopathology: Benhur Amanuel
• Soft Tissue Pathology: Irene Low
• Neuropathology: Peter Robbins
• GI pathology: James Kench
• Gynaecological pathology: Lyndal Anderson
• Skin pathology: Richard Scolyer
• Other RPAH & PathWest staff
• MD Anderson speakers • Jeff Medeiros - Hematopathology
• Jae Ro - Genitourinary - Prostate
• Dipen Maru - Gastrointestinal
• Victor Prieto - Dermatopathology
• Jeanne Meis - Soft Tissue
• Neda Kalhor/ Cesar Moran
Lecture and case-based format
Strictly limited to 200 registrants
Friday 14th to Sunday 16th Feb 2014
Convenors – Cesar Moran
– Dominic Spagnolo
– Richard Scolyer
Registrations forms: http://www.sswahs.nsw.gov.au/RPA/AnatPathology/
Fri 14th - Sun 16th Feb 2014