The Utility of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Elderly Patients with Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is performed less often for older patients with melanoma. We investigated the association of SLNB and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in the elderly. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER: 2010-2019) for patients ≥ 70 years with cT2-4N0M0 melanoma. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the impact of SLNB performance and SLN status on MSS at increasing age cutoffs. In addition, we evaluated the association of different factors with SLNB performance using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 11,548 patients. Sentinel lymph node biopsy occurred in 6754 (58.5%) patients, 1050 (15.5%) of whom had a positive SLN. On adjusted SEER analysis, a negative SLN was independently associated with improved MSS (overall hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.67) for patients up to 87 years old. Positive SLNB was independently associated with inferior MSS (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.93-1.98). Increasing age groups were significantly associated with decreased SLNB performance. CONCLUSIONS: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with cancer-specific survival and adds prognostic information for elderly patients with melanoma. Sentinel lymph node biopsy performance should not be eliminated in elderly patients based on age alone, unless justified by poor performance status, patient preference, or other surgical contraindications. Decreased SLNB performance with increasing age in our cohort may indicate a missed therapeutic opportunity in the care of elderly patients with melanoma.

Disparities in the Receipt of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, immunotherapy and targeted therapy revolutionized melanoma treatment. However, inequities in their use may limit the benefits seen by certain patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the National Cancer Database for patients with stage IV melanoma from 2 time periods: 2004-2010 and 2016-2020, distinguishing between those who received systemic therapy and those who did not. We investigated the rates and factors associated with treatment omission. We employed Kaplan-Meier analysis to explore the impact of treatment on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 19,961 patients met the inclusion criteria: 7621 patients were diagnosed in 2004-2010 and 12,340 patients in 2016-2020, of whom 54.9% and 28.3% did not receive systemic treatment, respectively. The rate of "no treatment" has decreased to a plateau of ∼25% in 2020. Median overall survival was improved with treatment in both time periods (2004-2010: 8.8 vs. 5.6 mo [ P <0.05]; and 2016-2020: 25.9 vs. 4.3 mo [ P <0.05]). Nonmedical factors associated with the omission of treatment in both periods included low socioeconomic status, Medicaid or no health insurance, and treatment at low-volume centers. In the period from 2016 to 2020, patients treated at nonacademic programs were also less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies significantly improve survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, but significant disparities exist with their receipt. Local efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from these revolutionary treatments.

Application of corneal injury models in dual fluorescent reporter transgenic mice to understand the roles of the cornea and limbus in angiogenic and lymphangiogenic privilege.

The role of the corneal epithelium and limbus in corneal avascularity and pathological neovascularization (NV) is not well understood. To investigate the contributions of the corneal and limbal epithelia in angiogenic and lymphangiogenic privilege, we designed five injury models involving debridement of different portions of the cornea and limbus and applied them to the dual-fluorescence reporter Prox1-GFP/Flt1-DsRed mouse, which permits in vivo imaging of blood and lymphatic vessels via fluorescence microscopy. Debridement of the whole cornea resulted in significant hemangiogenesis (HA) and lymphangiogenesis (LA), while that of the whole limbus yielded minimal corneal HA or LA. Following hemilimbal plus whole corneal debridement, corneal NV occurred only through the non-injured aspect of the limbus. Overall, these results suggest that the integrity of the corneal epithelium is important for (lymph)angiogenic privilege, whereas the limbus does not act as a physical or physiologic barrier to invading vessels. In CDh5-CreERT2VEGFR2lox/PGFD mice, conditional deletion of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 in vascular endothelial cells abolished injury-induced HA and LA, demonstrating the utility of this transgenic mouse line for identifying important factors in the process of neovascularization.

Fluorescent reporter transgenic mice for in vivo live imaging of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis.

The study of lymphangiogenesis is an emerging science that has revealed the lymphatic system as a central player in many pathological conditions including cancer metastasis, lymphedema, and organ graft rejection. A thorough understanding of the mechanisms of lymphatic growth will play a key role in the development of therapeutic strategies against these conditions. Despite the known potential of this field, the study of lymphatics has historically lagged behind that of hemangiogenesis. Until recently, significant strides in lymphatic studies were impeded by a lack of lymphatic-specific markers and suitable experimental models compared to those of the more immediately visible blood vasculature. Lymphangiogenesis has also been shown to be a key phenomenon in developmental biological processes, such as cell proliferation, guided migration, differentiation, and cell-to-cell communication, making lymphatic-specific visualization techniques highly desirable and desperately needed. Imaging modalities including immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization are limited by the need to sacrifice animal models for tissue harvesting at every experimental time point. Moreover, the processes of mounting and staining harvested tissues may introduce artifacts that can confound results. These traditional methods for investigating lymphatic and blood vasculature are associated with several problems including animal variability (e.g., between mice) when replicating lymphatic growth environments and the cost concerns of prolonged, labor-intensive studies, all of which complicate the study of dynamic lymphatic processes. With the discovery of lymphatic-specific markers, researchers have been able to develop several lymphatic and blood vessel-specific, promoter-driven, fluorescent-reporter transgenic mice for visualization of lymphatics in vivo and in vitro. For instance, GFP, mOrange, tdTomato, and other fluorescent proteins can be expressed under control of a lymphatic-specific marker like Prospero-related homeobox 1 (Prox1), which is a highly conserved transcription factor for determining embryonic organogenesis in vertebrates that is implicated in lymphangiogenesis as well as several human cancers. Importantly, Prox1-null mouse embryos develop without lymphatic vessels. In human adults, Prox1 maintains lymphatic endothelial cells and upregulates proteins associated with lymphangiogenesis (e.g., VEGFR-3) and downregulates angiogenesis-associated gene expression (e.g., STAT6). To visualize lymphatic development in the context of angiogenesis, dual fluorescent-transgenic reporters, like Prox1-GFP/Flt1-DsRed mice, have been bred to characterize lymphatic and blood vessels simultaneously in vivo. In this review, we discuss the trends in lymphatic visualization and the potential usage of transgenic breeds in hemangiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis research to understand spatial and temporal correlations between vascular development and pathological progression.

Potential lymphangiogenesis therapies: Learning from current antiangiogenesis therapies-A review.

In recent years, lymphangiogenesis, the process of lymphatic vessel formation from existing lymph vessels, has been demonstrated to have a significant role in diverse pathologies, including cancer metastasis, organ graft rejection, and lymphedema. Our understanding of the mechanisms of lymphangiogenesis has advanced on the heels of studies demonstrating vascular endothelial growth factor C as a central pro-lymphangiogenic regulator and others identifying multiple lymphatic endothelial biomarkers. Despite these breakthroughs and a growing appreciation of the signaling events that govern the lymphangiogenic process, there are no FDA-approved drugs that target lymphangiogenesis. In this review, we reflect on the lessons available from the development of antiangiogenic therapies (26 FDA-approved drugs to date), review current lymphangiogenesis research including nanotechnology in therapeutic drug delivery and imaging, and discuss molecules in the lymphangiogenic pathway that are promising therapeutic targets.

Detection of an Immunogenic HERV-E Envelope with Selective Expression in Clear Cell Kidney Cancer.

VHL-deficient clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC), the most common form of kidney cancer, express transcripts derived from the novel human endogenous retrovirus HERV-E (named CT-RCC HERV-E). In this study, we define a transcript encoding the entire envelope gene of HERV-E as expressed selectively in ccRCC tumors, as distinct from normal kidney tissues or other tumor types. Sequence analysis of this envelope transcript revealed long open reading frames encoding putative surface and transmembrane envelope proteins. Retroviral envelopes are known to be capable of eliciting immunity in humans. Accordingly, we found that HLA-A*0201-restricted peptides predicted to be products of the CT-RCC HERV-E envelope transcript-stimulated CD8(+) T cells, which could recognize HLA-A*0201-positive HERV-E-expressing kidney tumor cells. Overall, our results offer evidence of unique HERV-E envelope peptides presented on the surface of ccRCC cells, offering potentially useful tumor-restricted targets for T-cell-based immunotherapy of kidney cancer. Cancer Res; 76(8); 2177-85. ©2016 AACR.