Survival of Patients With Primary Cutaneous Melanoma and the Surgical Treatment Option Based on the Level of the Surface Protein PD-L1 in the Tumor Tissue

Background: The PD-­L1 level is mainly used to predict the effect of drug treatment in patients with melanoma. Despite the radical nature of surgery in these patients, the rate of disease progression remains high. Therefore, it is important to study the relation between the PD-­L1 level in the tumor and surgical treatment options for cutaneous melanoma and patient survival.

Objective: To analyze the effect of the PD-­L1 level in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma at different levels of tumor excision and options for closing the surgical defect.

Materials and methods: We used data of 143 patients with stage 0­IIIC primary cutaneous melanoma who were randomized into 2 groups: the main group (wide excision of the tumor and plastic repair of the tissue defect) and the comparison group (standard tumor removal) with different PD-­L1 levels (IC [immune cells] %). The 5­-year survival of patients was estimated.

Results: We found the mutual dependence of the PD­-L1 level and the survival of patients with stage 0-­IIC melanoma on the extent of the tissues removed and the option for closing the defect.

Conclusions: The 5­year progression­free survival in patients with stage 0­IIA primary cutaneous melanoma was higher than that of those with stage IIB-­IIC melanoma regardless of the PD-­L1 level. In patients with stage 0-­IIA primary cutaneous melanoma and the low PD-­L1 level (˂5), progression­free survival was 26.3% higher (P = .013) than that of those with the high PD-­L1 level (≥5). In patients from the main group with stage 0-­IIA melanoma and the low PD­L1 level (˂5), progression­free survival was 25% higher (P = .017) and overall survival was 16.7% higher (P = .045) compared with patients from the control group with the same PD-­L1 level. In patients from the main group with stage 0­-IIC melanoma and the high PD­-L1 level (≥5), the 5-­year progression­free survival was 21.2% higher (P = .033) compared with patients from the comparison group.

1. Pieniazek M, Matkowski R, Donizy P. Macrophages in skin melanoma-the key element in melanomagenesis. Oncol Lett. 2018;15(4):5399–5404. PMID: 29552183. PMCID: PMC5840697. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.8021

2. Bakker A, Maertens KJ, Van Son MJ, Van Loey NE. Psychological consequences of pediatric burns from a child and family perspective: a review of the empirical literature. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(3):361–371. PMID: 23410718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.12.006

3. RutkowskiJM, Moya M, JohannesJ, Goldman J, Swartz MA. Secondary lymphedema in the mouse tail: lymphatic hyperplasia, VEGF-C upregulation, and the protective role of MMP-9. Microvasc Res. 2006;72(3):161–171. PMID: 16876204. PMCID: PMC2676671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mvr.2006.05.009

4. Zampell JC, Yan A, Elhadad S, Avraham T, Weitman E, Mehrara BJ. CD4(+) cells regulate fibrosis and lymphangiogenesis in response to lymphatic fluid stasis. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049940. Published correction appears in PLoS One. 2013;8(5). PMID: 23185491. PMCID: PMC3502174. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/158f757f-7d5140b8-a3a4-550811bf0267

5. Backs J, Song K, Bezprozvannaya S, Chang S, Olson EN. CaM kinase II selectively signals to histone deacetylase 4 during cardiomyocyte hypertrophy. J Clin Invest. 2006;116(7):1853–1864. PMID: 16767219. PMCID: PMC1474817. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI27438

6. Harrell MI, Iritani BM, Ruddell A. Tumor-induced sentinel lymph node lymphangiogenesis and increased lymph flow precede melanoma metastasis. Am J Pathol. 2007;170(2):774–786. PMID: 17255343. PMCID: PMC1851877. https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2007.060761

7. Sund B. New Developments in Wound Care. PJB Publications CBS; 2000.

8. Van der Auwera I, Cao Y, Tille JC, et al. First international consensus on the methodology of lymphangiogenesis quantification in solid human tumours. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(12):1611–1625. PMID: 17117184. PMCID: PMC2360768. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603445

9. Abbas O, Miller DD, Bhawan J. Cutaneous malignant: update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Am J Dermatopathol. 2014;36(5):363–379. PMID: 24803061. https://doi.org/10.1097/DAD.0b013e31828a2ec5

10. Balch CM, Murad TM, Soong SJ, Ingalls AL, Richards PC, Maddox WA. Tumor thickness as a guide to surgical management of clinical stage I melanoma patients. Cancer. 1979;43(3):883–888. PMID: 427730. https://doi.org/10.1002/10970142(197903)43:3<883::aid-cncr2820430316>3.0.co;2-v

11. Bonachela NL, Kowalski LP, Santos ABO. Risk factors for positive sentinel lymph nodes in head and neck melanoma – a survival analysis. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;87(1):103–109. PMID: 33272834. PMCID: PMC9422560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.09.014

12. Han D, Han G, Morrison S, et al. Factors predicting survival in thick melanoma: do all thick melanomas have the same prognosis?. Surgery. 2020;168(3):518–526. PMID: 32669204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.04.048

13. Weiss SA, Hanniford D, Hernando E, Osman I. Revisiting determinants of prognosis in cutaneous melanoma. Cancer. 2015;121(23):4108–4123. PMID: 26308244. PMCID: PMC4666819. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29634

14. Tian J, Yang Y, Li MY, Zhang Y. A novel RNA sequencing-based prognostic nomogram to predict survival for patients with cutaneous melanoma: clinical trial/experimental study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(3):e18868. PMID: 32011509. PMCID: PMC7220347. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018868

15. Zaretsky AR, Demidov LV, Samoylenko IV. Biomarkers in metastatic melanoma of the skin: can we more accurately choose the tactics of treating our patients?. Meditsinskiy sovet. 2021;(9):48–63. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21518/2079701x-2021-9-48-63

16. Danaher P, Warren S, Lu R, et al. Pan-cancer adaptive immune resistance as defined by the Tumor Inflammation Signature (TIS): results from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):63. PMID: 29929551. PMCID: PMC6013904. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0367-1

17. Ascierto PA, Dummer R. Immunological effects of BRAF+MEK inhibition. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7(9):e1468955. PMID: 30228935. PMCID: PMC6140547. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2018.1468955

18. Mohammadpour A, Derakhshan M, Darabi H, Hedayat P, Momeni M. Melanoma: where we are and where we go. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(4):3307–3320. PMID: 30362507. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27286

19. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6199–6206. PMID: 19917835. PMCID: PMC2793035. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4799

20. PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx Interpretation Manual – NSCLC: For in vitro diagnostic use. Agilent Technologies, Inc.; 2021. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/usermanuals/public/29158_pd-l1-ihc-22C3-pharmdx-nsclc-interpretation-manual.pdf