Pregnancy-associated melanoma: characteristics and outcomes from 2002 to 2020.

Melanoma diagnosed within 1 year of pregnancy is defined as pregnancy-associated melanoma (PAM). No robust data on how pregnancy influences melanoma nor guidelines for PAM management exist. With IRB approval, female patients with a pathology-confirmed melanoma diagnosis within 1 year of pregnancy treated at our institution from 2000 to 2020 were identified. Controls from the cancer registry were matched 1 : 4 when available on decade of age, year of surgery (±5), and stage. We identified 83 PAM patients with median follow-up of 86 months. Mean age at diagnosis was 31 years. 80% AJCC V8 stage I, 2.4% stage II, 13% stage III, 4.8% stage IV. Mean Breslow thickness was 0.79 mm and 3.6% exhibited ulceration. The mean mitotic rate was 0.76/mm 2 . In terms of PAM management, 98.6% of ESD patients and 86.7% of LSD patients received standard-of-care therapy per NCCN guidelines for their disease stage. No clinically significant delays in treatment were noted. Time to treatment from diagnosis to systemic therapy for LSD patients was an average of 46 days (95% CI: 34-59 days). Comparing the 83 PAM patients to 309 controls matched on age, stage, and year of diagnosis, similar 5-year overall survival (97% vs. 97%, P  = 0.95) or recurrence-free survival (96% vs. 96%, P  = 0.86) was observed. The outcomes of PAM following SOC treatment at a highly specialized center for melanoma care were comparable to non-PAM when matched by clinical-pathologic features. Specialty center care is encouraged for women with PAM.

Quantitative spatial evaluation of tumor-immune interactions in the immunotherapy setting of metastatic melanoma lymph nodes.

Introduction: Immune cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment is generally associated with favorable clinical outcomes in solid tumors. However, the dynamic interplay among distinct immune cell subsets within the tumor-immune microenvironment as it relates to clinical responses to immunotherapy remains unresolved. In this study, we applied multiplex immunofluorescence (MxIF) to spatially characterize tumor-immune interactions within the metastatic melanoma lymph node. Methods: Pretreatment, whole lymph node biopsies were evaluated from 25 patients with regionally metastatic melanoma who underwent subsequent anti-PD1 therapy. Cyclic MxIF was applied to quantitatively and spatially assess expression of 45 pathologist-validated antibodies on a single tissue section. Pixel-based single cell segmentation and a supervised classifier approach resolved 10 distinct tumor, stromal and immune cell phenotypes and functional expression of PD1. Results: Single cell analysis across 416 pathologist-annotated tumor core regions of interest yielded 5.5 million cells for spatial evaluation. Cellular composition of tumor and immune cell subsets did not differ in the tumor core with regards to recurrence outcomes (p>0.05) however spatial patterns significantly differed in regional and paracrine neighborhood evaluations. Specifically, a regional community cluster comprised of primarily tumor and dendritic cells was enriched in patients that did not experience recurrence (p=0.009). By an independent spatial approach, cell-centric neighborhood analyses identified an enrichment for dendritic cells in cytotoxic T cell (CTL) and tumor cell-centric neighborhoods in the no recurrence patient response group (p<0.0001). Further evaluation of these neighborhoods identified an enrichment for CTL-dendritic cell interactions in patients that did not experience recurrence (p<0.0001) whereas CTL-macrophage interactions were more prevalent in CTL-centric neighborhoods of patients who experienced recurrence (p<0.0001). Discussion: Overall, this study offers a more comprehensive evaluation of immune infiltrates and spatial-immune signatures in the metastatic tumor-immune microenvironment as it informs recurrence risk following immunotherapy.

Rescuing Cancer Immunity by Plasma Exchange in Metastatic Melanoma (ReCIPE-M1): protocol for a single-institution, open-label safety trial of plasma exchange to clear sPD-L1 for immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma rely on PD-(L)1 immunotherapy, but only one-third of patients experience treatment response and all initial responders eventually develop resistance. Tumour-derived extracellular vesicles expressing Programmed death ligand 1 (evPD-L1) and soluble Programmed death ligand 1 (sPD-L1) in peripheral blood of patients with melanoma limit PD-(L)1 immunotherapy and correlate with poor survival. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) removes immunosuppressive evPD-L1 and sPD-L1. We hypothesise that TPE may rescue and restore antimelanoma immunity. METHODS: In this two-arm study, 60 patients with metastatic melanoma progressing on checkpoint inhibition will be accrued. All patients will undergo radiotherapy on days 1-5 (at least one measurable lesion will not be irradiated) and ongoing checkpoint inhibition on day 8 and every 2-3 weeks per standard of care. Patients with baseline sPD-L1 level of ≥1.7 ng/mL and adequate clinical capacity will be enrolled in the TPE intervention arm and will undergo TPE on days 5-7, in addition to standard of care radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Other patients will remain in the standard of care arm.The primary endpoint of the study is to evaluate safety. Secondary endpoints include kinetics of sPD-L1 and evPD-L1 and clinical response by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581382). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. It will assess the safety and feasibility of TPE in improving outcomes for PD-(L)1 inhibitor immunotherapy in melanoma. Data will be maintained on a secure database with deidentified patient information. Data will be shared on publication in a peer-reviewed journal without the aid of professional writers. If successful, this trial will lay the ground for phase II studies that will include cancer treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors which may benefit from TPE such as renal, bladder and lung cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04581382.

The immunologic balance: three cases of rituximab-associated melanoma.

Currently, there is no known clinical evidence that rituximab increases the rate of subsequent primary malignancies; however, some studies have raised the question of increased melanoma risk following rituximab treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We report three interesting cases of suspected rituximab-induced melanoma. We hypothesize that this association is secondary to rituximab-driven shifts in the immunologic balance. Based on these cases, it is possible that the number of post-rituximab melanoma cases is underreported. Further mechanistic research into individual cases and population-level studies are required to better define association and risk; however, given the increasing prevalence of oncologic and nononcologic rituximab use, awareness across all fields is essential.

Orbital apex syndrome due to invasive aspergillosis in an immunocompetent patient.

Infection is a rare cause of orbital apex syndrome (OAS) and most commonly occurs in immunocompromised hosts. We report a case of OAS in an elderly immunocompetent female due to invasive aspergillosis and Staphylococcus aureus co-infection. The patient required both surgical debridement and prolonged courses of antibiotic and antifungal therapy. Invasive fungal disease must be considered in cases of OAS, even in patients without classic risk factors.

Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides.

BACKGROUND: To assess reproducibility and accuracy of overall Nottingham grade and component scores using digital whole slide images (WSIs) compared to glass slides. METHODS: Two hundred and eight pathologists were randomized to independently interpret 1 of 4 breast biopsy sets using either glass slides or digital WSI. Each set included 5 or 6 invasive carcinomas (22 total invasive cases). Participants interpreted the same biopsy set approximately 9 months later following a second randomization to WSI or glass slides. Nottingham grade, including component scores, was assessed on each interpretation, providing 2045 independent interpretations of grade. Overall grade and component scores were compared between pathologists (interobserver agreement) and for interpretations by the same pathologist (intraobserver agreement). Grade assessments were compared when the format (WSI vs. glass slides) changed or was the same for the two interpretations. RESULTS: Nottingham grade intraobserver agreement was highest using glass slides for both interpretations (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 68%, 78%) and slightly lower but not statistically different using digital WSI for both interpretations (68%, 95% CI: 61%, 75%; P= 0.22). The agreement was lowest when the format changed between interpretations (63%, 95% CI: 59%, 68%). Interobserver agreement was significantly higher (P < 0.001) using glass slides versus digital WSI (68%, 95% CI: 66%, 70% versus 60%, 95% CI: 57%, 62%, respectively). Nuclear pleomorphism scores had the lowest inter- and intra-observer agreement. Mitotic scores were higher on glass slides in inter- and intra-observer comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists' intraobserver agreement (reproducibility) is similar for Nottingham grade using glass slides or WSI. However, slightly lower agreement between pathologists suggests that verification of grade using digital WSI may be more challenging.