Abstract
Introduction
While improvements have been made to risk assessment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) patients, there is a critical need for a uniform and more precise stratification system of their care. To address this unmet clinical need, a prognostic 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test has recently been developed and independently validated to show improved stratification of metastatic risk in high-risk cSCC patients compared with current staging systems.
Methods
Two cSCC cases, both male with similar patient profiles and the same staging status across two different staging systems, yet with opposing outcomes, were chosen for retrospective review of their primary biopsy using the 40-GEP test.
Results
Case 1 declined further treatment, even when presented with evidence of a small focus of cSCC found in the last layer of nonmarginal tissue obtained from Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). Case 1 remained recurrence free, and retrospective analysis of the initial biopsy with the 40-GEP test provided a Class 1 result (low likelihood of metastasis). Case 2, even with subsequent clearing of the primary cSCC with MMS, noted another metastatic cSCC 3 months later. Case 2, after multimodal adjuvant treatments, died due to disease progression. Retrospective analysis of the initial biopsy with the 40-GEP test provided a Class 2B result (high likelihood of metastasis).
Conclusions
The cases discussed highlight the utility in 40-GEP to provide additional information to guide treatment decisions and improve outcomes. Integrating novel molecular prognostication with traditional clinicopathological risk factors can improve stratification of high-risk cSCC patients and may inform selection of risk-appropriate treatment and surveillance strategies.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Managing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a significant clinical issue, with an average of 1.8 million cases diagnosed per year, and a staggering increase in incidence over the past three decades. |
We present two cases, in which both patients had similar clinical profiles and the same initial Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition (AJCC-8) staging, yet with distinctively different outcomes. |
In a retrospective analysis of the initial biopsies of these patients, the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test demonstrated its ability to distinguish between the biologically less aggressive and biologically more aggressive tumors. |
These cases highlight the utility of the 40-GEP test as an adjunct to enhance cSCC risk stratification, with the potential to improve patient care and outcomes. |
Introduction
While cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has an overall favorable prognosis, a subset of patients will develop metastases and die from their disease. Even with a low fatality rate, the high (~1.8 million cases/year [1]) and increasing incidence of cSCC will perpetuate the occurrence of poor outcomes. Once nodal metastasis is detected, 5-year survival rates have been reported to be 50–70% [2, 3] even after appropriate treatments, and once distant metastasis has been identified, 5-year survival is rare [4]. Deaths from this disease are estimated to surpass those from melanoma, making the management of cSCC an increasingly significant clinical issue [5].
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) classifies cSCC patients as high risk for local recurrence or very high risk for metastasis or death by the presentation of selected risk factors and presents a range of downstream management approaches [6]. Tumor staging systems, such as the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition (AJCC-8) [7] and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) system [8], help determine recurrence and metastatic risk by translation of high-risk factors into tumor (T) stages. However, these systems can fail to fully assess patient risk, leading to low accuracy when identifying metastasis [9]. The subset of cSCC patients classified as high risk commonly require a more aggressive treatment regimen, but guidelines are vague and staging criteria has been noted as limited and lacking homogeneity [10,11,12], creating a burden for clinicians when establishing an appropriate treatment plan.
A 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test was recently developed to assess the biology of primary archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cSCC tissue, and has been validated to significantly improve metastasis risk prediction when compared with the current staging systems listed above [9]. The 40-GEP test classifies patients into three groups based on risk for regional and/or distant metastasis (Class 1: low risk; Class 2A: moderate risk; Class 2B: high risk). As national guidelines for high-risk cSCC patients are unclear on which patients warrant additional follow-up and management, treatment of high-risk cSCC often relies on risk assessment based on individual risk factors weighted by physician judgement, leading to management intensity heterogeneity and highlighting the critical need for an unbiased method of risk assessment. The purpose of developing the 40-GEP test was to identify high-risk cSCC early in the disease state, such that its result could complement current risk assessment methods for development of more personalized management plans to reduce the risk of poor outcomes for cSCC patients. The cases discussed herein highlight the utility of 40-GEP to provide additional information to guide treatment decisions and improve outcomes.
Methods
Sample Acquisition and Analysis
Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples from primary cSCC tissue and associated de-identified clinical data were obtained from Department of Dermatology, Indiana University School of Medicine. All reported clinicopathological and outcomes patient data were monitored onsite, including review of pathology reports and medical records. Staging was performed by a board-certified dermatopathologist and included all available data in the medical record and centralized pathology review. Briefly, the generation of a 40-GEP test result requires FFPE tumor tissue macrodissection and processing by real-time PCR, with samples run in triplicate, as previously described [9].
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This study received institutional approval for institutional review board (IRB) exempt status from Indiana University (Protocol #1708728214). This study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964. A waiver of informed consent was granted by Indiana University Human Research Protection Program policy on informed consent.
Results
Case Presentations
Case 1 (Fig. 1) was a 65-year-old male patient with a history of renal and liver transplantation and cSCC, who presented with a papule on his left temple previously treated with cryotherapy. The 1.3 cm tumor was diagnosed to be a poorly differentiated cSCC and staged as a BWH T2a and AJCC-8 stage T1. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was completed in four stages and was initially determined to be margin negative. However, subsequent analysis of the last layer of nonmarginal tissue was positive for cSCC. This prompted a review of the marginal frozen sections, which showed a small focus of cSCC. While the residual cSCC may have been removed with the standing cone, there was no histologic confirmation. The patient was informed but declined any further treatments. The patient was recurrence-free for 4 years, but subsequently died due to unrelated causes (myocardial infarction). Retrospective analysis of the initial biopsy with the 40-GEP test provided a Class 1 result.
Case 2 (Fig. 2) is a 69-year-old male patient with a history of liver transplantation and cSCC, who presented with a 2-month history of an exophytic growth on his left temple. The 1.5 cm tumor was diagnosed to be a poorly differentiated cSCC (BWH T2a, AJCC-8 stage T1) with subsequent clearing with MMS in two stages 1 month later. The patient then noted another growth immediately inferior to the linear scar line, as well as one on the ipsilateral helical root 3 months later. The biopsy results were consistent with metastatic cSCC. Despite aggressive therapies, the patient died due to disease progression. Retrospective analysis of the initial biopsy with the 40-GEP test provided a Class 2B result.
Discussion and Conclusion
We present two cases that highlight the utility of the 40-GEP test as an adjunct to enhance cSCC risk stratification. Each case was similar in patient background and tumor characteristics and had the same initial BWH and AJCC-8 staging, yet there were distinctively different outcomes between them (Table 1). Case 1 highlighted a biologically less aggressive tumor (with a retrospective 40-GEP Class 1 result) that did not recur despite incomplete surgical clearance. Case 2 highlighted a biologically aggressive tumor (with a retrospective 40-GEP Class 2B result) that developed regional metastasis despite clear surgical margins obtained through MMS. Adjuvant treatment might have been appropriate for this patient earlier in the disease course and thus altered his prognosis.
Although the majority of cSCC tumors are associated with a favorable outcome, patients presenting with clinicopathologic high-risk factors show a higher risk of local recurrence, as well as regional and distant metastasis, which are associated with high levels of cSCC mortality [12]. Unfortunately, an unclear agreement on what factors are most influential in determining a high-risk cSCC tumor that may most benefit from a particular adjuvant therapy, as seen in the ambiguity concerning treatment recommendations (as governed by the NCCN) and the diversity of risk factors considered high risk by staging criteria (i.e., AJCC-8 and BWH), has led to a wide range of and variation in patient management decisions [13, 14]. These inconsistencies have a profound effect on the accuracy of applying staging to risk assessment [9] and emphasize the need for an objective tool to complement these systems.
Effective molecular prognostic assays provide reproducible and reliable risk assessment (analytical and clinical validity) to alter decision making (clinical utility). The advancement of gene expression profiling signatures for use in clinical management make them a powerful prognostic tool, when complementing staging, for many other tumor types [15,16,17,18,19]. A recent publication from Ibrahim et al. [20] demonstrated how combining both clinicopathologic features with molecular testing for cSCC can augment stratification of metastatic risk. This may reduce expanding health care costs by focusing more intense treatments (i.e., therapeutics, surgeries, and/or imaging) toward patients who will see the utmost benefit, while reducing unnecessary procedures for those who would be appropriately deemed low risk for metastatic disease. With this study, we demonstrate that the integration of novel molecular prognostication for cSCC in combination with traditional clinicopathologic risk factors, has the potential to improve stratification of high-risk cSCC patients and posits selection of risk-appropriate treatment and surveillance strategies aligned with a patient’s biological risk for poor outcomes.
References
Skin Cancer Foundation: Skin Cancer Facts and Statistics [Internet]. The Skin Cancer Foundation. 2021. https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/. Accessed Jun 14 2021.
Thompson AK, Kelley BF, Prokop LJ, et al. Risk factors for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:419–28.
Porceddu SV, Bressel M, Poulsen MG, et al. Postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the randomized phase III TROG 05.01 trial. JCO. 2018;36:1275–83.
Smile TD, Xiong DX, Varra V, et al. Disease progression in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients with satellitosis and in-transit metastasis. Anticancer Res. 2021;41:289–95.
Karia PS, Han J, Schmults CD. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: estimated incidence of disease, nodal metastasis, and deaths from disease in the United States, 2012. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68:957–66.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Squamous Cell Skin Cancer, NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2021, in NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/squamous.pdf. Accessed Sep 09 2021.
Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
Jambusaria-Pahlajani A, Kanetsky PA, Karia PS, et al. Evaluation of AJCC tumor staging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and a proposed alternative tumor staging system. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149:402.
Wysong A, Newman JG, Covington KR, et al. Validation of a 40-gene expression profile test to predict metastatic risk in localized high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:361–9.
Cañueto J, Burguillo J, Moyano-Bueno D, et al. Comparing the eighth and the seventh editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital alternative staging system for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Implications for clinical practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:106-113.e2.
Conde-Ferreirós A, Corchete LA, Puebla-Tornero L, et al. Definition of prognostic subgroups in the T3 stage of the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: tentative T3 stage subclassification. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.088.
Claveau J, Archambault J, Ernst DS, et al. Multidisciplinary management of locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Curr Oncol. 2020;27:e399–407.
Jambusaria-Pahlajani A, Hess SD, Katz KA, et al. Uncertainty in the perioperative management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma among mohs surgeons. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146:1225–31.
Jambusaria-Pahlajani A, Miller CJ, Quon H, et al. Surgical monotherapy versus surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy in high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review of outcomes. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35:574–84.
Colman H, Zhang L, Sulman EP, et al. A multigene predictor of outcome in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2010;12:49–57.
Francis P, Namlos HM, Muller C, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic gene expression signatures in 177 soft tissue sarcomas: hypoxia-induced transcription profile signifies metastatic potential. BMC Genom. 2007;8:73.
Onken MD, Worley LA, Char DH, et al. Collaborative ocular oncology group report number 1: prospective validation of a multi-gene prognostic assay in uveal melanoma. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1596–603.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.
Gerami P, Cook RW, Wilkinson J, et al. Development of a prognostic genetic signature to predict the metastatic risk associated with cutaneous melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:175–83.
Ibrahim SF, Kasprzak JM, Hall MA, et al. Enhanced metastatic risk assessment in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with the 40-gene expression profile test. Future Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2021-1277.
Acknowledgements
Funding
Sponsorship for this study was provided by Castle Biosciences, Inc. No Rapid Service Fee was received by the journal for the publication of this article.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Author Contributions
Review, editing and intellectual contributions: Jeremiah H. Au; Original draft composition: Perry B. Hooper; Critical revisions and editing: Alison L. Fitzgerald; Idea for article and critical revisions: Ally-Khan Somani
Prior Presentations
These cases were presented as a poster during the European Association of Dermato Oncology Congress (EADO) on April 15-17, 2021.
Disclosures
Jeremiah H. Au and Perry B. Hooper declare that they have no conflict of interest. Alison L. Fitzgerald is an employee and option holder of Castle Biosciences, Inc. Ally-Khan Somani is an investigator and receives honoraria as a member of the Castle Bioscience’s Speakers Bureau.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This study received institutional approval for IRB exempt status from Indiana University (Protocol #1708728214). This study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964. A waiver of informed consent was granted by Indiana University Human Research Protection Program policy on informed consent.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The authors would like to thank the participants of the study for their contribution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Au, J.H., Hooper, P.B., Fitzgerald, A.L. et al. Clinical Utility of the 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test for Improved Patient Management Decisions and Disease-Related Outcomes when Combined with Current Clinicopathological Risk Factors for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC): Case Series. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 12, 591–597 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-021-00665-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-021-00665-y