Role of Biomarkers in the Integrated Management of Melanoma

Naik, Piyu Parth

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6238317

Disease Markers

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Data Availability Additional Points Ethical Approval Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 6238317 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6238317

Role of Biomarkers in the Integrated Management of Melanoma

Piyu Parth Naik¹

Academic Editor: Luca Falzone

Received17 Oct 2021

Accepted13 Dec 2021

Published30 Dec 2021

Abstract

Melanoma, which is an aggressive skin cancer, is currently the fifth and seventh most common cancer in men and women, respectively. The American Cancer Society reported that approximately 106,110 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the United States in 2021, with 7,180 people dying from the disease. This information could facilitate the early detection of possible metastatic lesions and the development of novel therapeutic techniques for melanoma. Additionally, early detection of malignant melanoma remains an objective of melanoma research. Recently, melanoma treatment has substantially improved, given the availability of targeted treatments and immunotherapy. These developments have highlighted the significance of identifying biomarkers for prognosis and predicting therapy response. Biomarkers included tissue protein expression, circulating DNA detection, and genetic alterations in cancer cells. Improved diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are becoming increasingly relevant in melanoma treatment, with the development of newer and more targeted treatments. Here, the author discusses the aspects of biomarkers in the real-time management of patients with melanoma.

1. Introduction

Melanoma is an increasingly prevalent, potentially fatal skin cancer. Melanoma can develop on the leptomeninges, mucosal surfaces, and the uveal tract, with cutaneous melanoma being the most prevalent type [1, 2]. Melanoma was once considered uncommon; however, its prevalence has increased faster than any other cancer within the previous 50 years [3]. In 2017, melanoma was detected in over 85,000 new instances in the United States (US), which makes it the sixth most prevalent cancer, with >9500 deaths [4]. Among skin cancer, melanoma accounts for the highest mortality but accounts for >5% of all cutaneous malignancies [3]. Melanoma originates in cutaneous melanocytes and is classified as noncutaneous or cutaneous. Cutaneous melanoma has four primary subtypes: acral lentiginous (<5%), lentigo maligna melanoma (4%–10%), nodular melanoma (15%–30%), and superficial spreading melanoma (70%) [5]. Melanoma can develop in any noncutaneous site with melanocytes, including the nasopharyngeal, genitourinary, ocular, and gastrointestinal regions. Melanoma of unknown primary location, ocular melanoma, and mucosal melanoma account for 2.2%, 5.2%, and 1.3%, respectively [2, 6]. Melanoma prognosis is determined by lesion’s thickness, with thicker lesions indicating a higher mortality rate [7]. Absolute abscission of melanoma causes exceptional emanation in the early stages. However, melanoma is a dangerous cancer that often spreads beyond its primary site. Surgery cannot comprehensively manage advanced melanoma, with the disease becoming more challenging to treat [3, 8]. Despite recent advances in metastatic melanoma therapy, melanoma with distant metastases still has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of only 16% [9]. Since patients with late-stage melanoma have a poor prognosis, biomarkers are necessary for treatment and identifying individuals requiring aggressive treatment. These biological markers facilitate melanoma diagnosis and monitoring of melanoma recurrence after surgical resection and the influence of radiation or anticancer medication therapy. Accordingly, the current review discusses the potential role of biomarkers in the integrated management of melanoma.

2. Methodology

The following terms were combined to search MEDLINE and PubMed: Biomarkers AND “melanoma” OR “stem cell “OR “melanoma” AND “cyclooxygenase” OR “biomarker”) AND (“skin neoplasms” OR (“skin” AND “neoplasms”) OR “skin neoplasms” OR (“skin” AND “cancer”) OR “skin cancer”) AND (“melanoma” OR “melanoma”) AND (“lactate dehydrogenase” OR “diagnosis” OR “screening” OR “tyrosinase” OR (“S100” AND “screening”) OR AND (“diagnosis” OR “diagnosis” OR “screening” OR “mass screening” OR (“mass” AND “screening”) OR “mass screening” OR “screening” OR “early detection of cancer” OR (“early” AND “detection” AND “cancer”) OR “early detection of cancer”) AND (“early diagnosis” OR (“early” AND “diagnosis”) OR “early diagnosis”). Primarily, the author searched for articles regarding biomarkers and their role in managing melanoma. As shown in Figure 1, the initial literature search revealed 10756 articles. This review included articles published in English between January 1990 and July 2021 that described biomarkers in melanoma management.

3. Biomarkers Associated with the Treatment of Melanoma

Over the past few decades, there has been a progressive increase in the global incidence of melanoma. In many fair-skinned communities, the prevalence has increased to 4%–6%, especially in Australia, New Zealand, Northern Europe, and North America. Additionally, there has been a significant increase in the incidence rates in communities of many ethnicities and geographic locations and within populations of different ages and genders [3]. Therefore, the basic concept of melanoma control is therapy personalization; high-risk groups should be diagnosed early and sensitive. In this context, biomarkers represent unique molecular characteristics of a patient that allow the detection and diagnosis of cancer with respect to tumor’s biological behavior, sensitivity to therapy, or resistance mechanisms. Biomarkers may significantly improve melanoma therapy and facilitate simple detection. Moreover, they could allow identification and treatment of melanoma before it becomes apparent or symptomatic, as well as screening according to the general population.

Melanoma biomarkers can be classified into several groups. They are utilized as diagnostic markers since they are increased in tumor cells than in normal tissue compared to healthy participants. Several biomarkers have prognostic or predictive utility given their amplification in the late phases of cutaneous melanoma during therapeutic repercussions or disease reappearance indicators during the follow-up period [10]. Figure 2 presents the formulation of numerous biomarkers in tumor cells, as well as their prepatent pertinence. Melanoma cells release several molecules and proteins into the extracellular fluid. Some of these molecules can enter the bloodstream and be used as serum biomarkers. These biomarkers comprise molecules, including enzymes, circulating cell-free nucleic acids, antigens or soluble proteins, and melanin-related metabolites. From a pathobiochemical perspective, they are released through ectodomain membrane shedding, necrosis, and active secretion [11]. These molecules have varying prognosticative merits in treatment monitoring and melanoma diagnosis [12, 13]. Nonetheless, biomarkers determined through immunohistochemical and histological assays of biopsy substances have indispensable applicability in melanoma therapy. Table 1 lists the potential biomarkers for malignant melanoma.

4. Commonly Used Methodologies for the Detection of Melanoma Biomarkers

The current gold standard for a melanoma diagnosis is the histologic interpretation of cytomorphologic and architectural characteristics, which is still one of the most challenging areas of dermatopathology practice. This inherently and inevitably subjective practice is subject to well-documented pathologist interobserver and intraobserver variability [34–36] and diagnostic drift [37].

4.1. myPath Melanoma: 23-Gene Expression Profiling (Myriad Genetics)

The myPath Melanoma diagnostic test from Myriad Genetics can help distinguish between benign melanocytic nevi and malignant melanoma. This assay, like the DecisionDx-Melanoma test, uses reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction technology, but instead of evaluating the expression of 23 genes, it uses an algorithm that assigns different weights and expression thresholds to each gene [38–40].

4.2. Pigmented Lesion Assay: 2-Gene Expression Profiling (DermTech)

Molecular testing has made its way from pathology laboratories to dermatology clinics to aid clinicians in their biopsy decisions. DermTech recently published research on the development, validation, and clinical utility of its noninvasive adhesive patch “skin biopsy,” which collects 1.5 mg of the stratum corneum tissue containing approximately 23 ng of human skin RNA from the underlying melanocytic neoplasm, as well as human skin DNA, microbial DNA, proteins, lipids, and sugars [41, 42].

4.3. DecisionDx-Melanoma: 31-Gene Expression Profiling (Castle Biosciences)

The DecisionDx-Melanoma test from Castle Biosciences assesses the risk of metastasis in cases where melanoma has previously been diagnosed. This assay uses a reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction approach to create a messenger RNA-based gene expression profile assay that includes 28 prognostically essential genes and three control genes [43].

4.4. FISH Testing

FISH is a molecular technique that detects complementary genomic DNA sequences on metaphase and/or interphase nuclei in tissue sections using fluorescent DNA locus-specific probes, enabling for direct viewing of specific genomic DNA segments. For melanocytic lesions, there are two types of probes: centromere probes, which identify centromeric areas on chromosomes, and locus-specific probes, which hybridize onto target sequences spanning genes or regions of interest. FISH assays can identify chromosomal deletions, amplifications, and translocations depending on the probe(s) used [44].

4.5. qRT-PCR

qRT-PCR is a molecular biology technique for detecting the amount of expression of specific RNA transcripts. In brief, the technique entails transcribing RNA to complementary DNA (cDNA) and then performing real-time PCR. Transcriptome data from extensive-expression array experiments can be analyzed for substantial changes in RNA expression between neoplasms and used to create gene expression signatures that distinguish between benign and malignant tumors [45].

4.6. 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine

Finally, immunohistochemical detection of loss of the epigenetically changed DNA base 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) is a potentially valuable diagnostic and prognostic adjunct in assessing melanocytic proliferations [46]. 5-hmC is a crucial step in the teneleven translocase 2- (TET2-) mediated DNA demethylation process, vital for DNA damage detection, telomere maintenance, and genomic stability [47, 48]. 5-hmC loss has been proven to be a diagnostic feature of malignant melanoma and discriminate between a spectrum of histologic and genetically diverse melanoma subtypes and benign nevi with high sensitivity and specificity [49–54].

5. Prognostic Biomarkers

The broadest category of biomarkers is prognostic biomarkers. They range from predictors of survival prospects to those of probable melanoma return. The main limitation of survival indicators is that they might require adoption by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) or other similar staging protocols before being widely used. Otherwise, the requesting clinician would be confused about how an adverse outcome alters patient’s clinical-stage, intervention options, and eventual outcomes. A biomarker with good test features should be integrated into a staging groundwork for clinical decision-making to allow utility. The Castle DecisionDx assay is a commercially available prognostic and diagnostic tool. Although it is not included in the AJCC staging or National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines, it can identify patients with stage I and II cancer at a higher risk of metastasis and mortality. The gene expression profile has shown consistency across analytical instruments in differentiating “class 1” (low-risk) from “class 2” (high-risk) probability scores, as well as technical concordance between runs [55]. Small-scale retrospective and prospective clinical cohorts have improved stratification of the risk of relapse and distant metastases regardless of the sentinel lymph node biopsy status [56–60]. Applying both DecisionDx probability scores and AJCC stages (“low-risk”: IB-IIA, “high-risk”: IIBIIC), Podlipnik et al. reported a lower disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with melanoma with DecisionDx high-risk “class 2” scores, regardless of the AJCC staging [60].

Ki-67 is a nuclear antigen expressed throughout the cell cycle’s active phases and is a proliferation marker (G1, S, G2, and M) [61]. The ki-67 expression has been shown to connect directly with prognosis in thin melanomas (less than 1 mm) and may link more strongly with prognosis than mitotic count [62, 63]. Furthermore, in thicker melanomas (>1 mm), Ki-67 has been demonstrated to be superior to mitotic count as a predictive indicator for survival [64]. Furthermore, histopathologists’ detection of mitoses has a considerable degree of interobserver heterogeneity [65].

Sentinel lymph node involvement is more likely in tumors with greater mitotic rates, Breslow thickness, and the absence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes [66]. The number of nodal metastases is the single most important predictor of patient survival in patients with stage III cancer; therefore, these markers are even more critical [67].

More than half of all melanomas have BRAF mutations, with the V600E mutation accounting for nearly all [68, 69]. The MAPK pathway can be activated indefinitely if specific mutations occur [70]. BRAF mutations, particularly the V600E mutant, have not been linked to a substantial difference in patient survival compared to melanomas that do not contain this mutation [71]. However, in individuals with late-stage melanoma who carry the V600E mutation, the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has been proven to improve survival. As a result of this new treatment, patients with tumors positive for the BRAF mutation may have a better prognosis [72].

MCAM, also known as MUC18 or CD146, is a 113-kDa cell adhesion protein customarily expressed on endothelium and smooth muscle cells in adult tissue [73]. It is substantially expressed in advanced primary and metastatic melanoma and less so in nevi, even though it is rarely expressed in carcinomas [74–76]. MCAM expression is an independent predictor of outcome [77, 78].

6. Stem Cell-Like Markers

Other than the aforementioned indicators, animal studies have identified auxiliary proteins in circulating melanoma cells. Few could be markers for melanoma progenitor cells or stem cells, including the neuroepithelial intermediate filament nestin and ATP-binding cassette multidrug transporters [11, 13]. Hong and Saint-Jeannet reported a positive relationship between nestin expression and advanced disease in several melanoma specimens [79]; however, they observed high nestin expression in compound nevi. Notably, progenitor cells include Sry-related HMG-box (SOX) proteins. In some cases, nuclear transcription factors are involved in developing neural crest progenitor cells into melanocytes; however, supplements are more resourceful fate regulators of stem and progenitor cells [79, 80].

The immunohistochemistry profile of SOX10 is a reliable marker for diagnosing metastatic melanoma in sentinel lymph nodes, with increased specificity and sensitivity when combined with additional immunohistochemical stains, including melan A or S100B [14]. However, SOX10 staining cannot distinguish melanoma metastases from nodal nevi [14]. Contrastingly, in addition to nestin, SOX2 can successfully distinguish nodal melanocytic nevi from metastatic melanoma and could be a diagnostic tool in melanoma staging [15]. Variations in the biomarker utility of multiple SOX protein family members are consistent with the extensive heterogeneity of melanoma. Numerous other biomarkers were in the same position. These previous inconsistent findings essentially confound the final assessment. For example, the significance of two other stem cell-like markers, CD133 (syn. prominin-1) and CD271 (nerve growth factor receptor), which have recently been identified as critical molecules that promote melanoma initiation and metastasis, remains unclear [81–83]. Table 1 lists other proteins that could be used as candidate melanoma biomarkers. Furthermore, melanoma biomarker research could focus on nonprotein biomarkers, including the metabolites of the melanin production pathway derived from cell-free nucleic acids and the amino acid l-tyrosine [11].

7. Inhibitors of Endogenous Enzymes

Tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) such as TIMP-1, which are endogenous inhibitors of MMPs, are important in tumor formation. TIMPs are involved in differentiation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, extracellular matrix degradation, and proliferation of normal and malignant cells [84]. Compared with healthy individuals, patients with stage I–III melanoma have higher median serum TIMP-1 levels, influencing overall and DFS. However, there is no association between invasion depth and TIMP-1 levels, clinical stage, or nodal status with respect to MMP-9 [27]. SerpinB1 has been proposed as a marker for the chemotherapeutic response. Willmes et al. reported clinical and experimental data regarding serpinB1 expression, which indicates that cisplatin-based therapy regimens could help patients with stage IV cutaneous melanoma with high serpinB1 protein amplification.

Furthermore, serpinB1 protein expression can predict the outcome of melanoma chemotherapy with cisplatin [85]. There has been increasing attention to other protease inhibitors, including serpinB1 and maspin (serpinB5), serine protease inhibitor superfamily members. Maspin loss in melanoma could contribute to the metastatic spread and disease progression; however, this remains unclear [86, 87].

8. Cyclooxygenase-2

Cyclooxygenases act as significant modulators in the human body and influence crucial processes, including catabolic metabolism. Cyclooxygenases convert arachidonic acid to prostaglandins. Cyclooxygenase-2 is activated in tumor cells [88, 89]. In melanoma, Becker et al. reported an association of the staining magnitude of cyclooxygenase-2 with Breslow depth [90]. Additionally, Kużbicki et al. found that compared with benign nevi, melanoma lesions had a higher cyclooxygenase-2 staining intensity [91]. Several studies have reported that cyclooxygenase-2 is a potential immunohistochemical marker in the oral cavity for differentiating between melanoma and benign melanocytic lesions [92]. These findings suggest that cyclooxygenase-2 expression plays a pathogenic role in melanoma and is a prospective molecular target [93]. Kużbicki et al. developed an immunohistochemical scoring methodology, which demonstrates the significance of cyclooxygenase-2 as a negative prognostic factor for melanoma, directly associated with other relevant prognostic variables, including ulceration, lymph node metastasis, and tumor thickness [94]. Hennequart et al. reported that cyclooxygenase-2 shaped the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in nonmelanoma and melanoma (KUL98-MELA) cell line tumors. Recent studies have synthesized new celecoxib analogs with significant cytostatic activity against melanoma cells [95]. Recent studies have synthesized new celecoxib analogs with significant cytostatic activity against melanoma cells [96]. An ongoing phase II trial is assessing the antiproliferative utility of aspirin combined with CTLA4 (ipilimumab) and PD-1 (pembrolizumab) inhibitors [97]. These findings provide insight into the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in melanoma treatment.

9. Lactate Dehydrogenase

LDH is primarily secreted in response to cell death or injury, indicating increased tumor burden and disease progression. However, increased serum LDH levels are not limited to cancer and can occur with inflammation, infarction, infection, and hemolysis. Consequently, the false-positive rate restricts the positive predictive value in melanoma [10]. Recent studies have demonstrated that LDH is imperceptive in early-stage melanoma but has a negative prognostic value for metastatic relapse [98–100].

There have been recent studies on serum LDH as a prognostic indicator in patients with advanced melanoma treated through immunomodulatory drugs. In patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab, the baseline serum LDH level is a strong predictor of overall survival (OS) [101]. Specifically, patients with a serum LDH level that is more than twice the upper standard limit at baseline are unlikely to benefit from long-term ipilimumab treatment. Another study reported that low serum LDH is associated with a positive outcome in patients with late-stage melanoma treated with ipilimumab, which confirms that baseline serum LDH could guide prognosis in patients with advanced melanoma [102]. There has been a recent further establishment of the importance of LDH as a predictor and measure of therapeutic response. A meta-analysis study reported an association of high blood LDH levels with shorter OS in patients with melanoma [103]. According to an independent investigation, low baseline serum LDH is related to a positive result in patients with late-stage melanoma treated with ipilimumab, confirming that baseline serum LDH is a potential marker for prognosis in patients with advanced melanoma [102]. Fischer et al. reported that elevated serum LDH is associated with poor clinical outcomes in stage IV metastatic melanoma patients. Using various thresholds (≥3, ; ≥4, ; ≥5, ), univariate analysis revealed that patients with elevated serum LDH () had a substantially higher number of sites with metastatic involvement than patients without elevated serum LDH () [104].

10. Matrix Metalloproteinases

Matrix metalloproteinases are necessary for proteolytic splicing of the sectarian tissue framework, which allows tumor cell migration and promotes tissue remodeling, contributing to modifying the tumor tissue microenvironment [105, 106]. These factors lead to protein overexpression in tumor tissues. Nikkola et al. observed that MMP-1- and MMP-3-positive melanoma metastases are associated with a shorter DFS [107]. Furthermore, Rotte et al. reported that compared with normal and dysplastic nevi, melanoma has greater MMP-2 expression; moreover, MMP-2 expression was strongly associated with negative tumor evolution and poor survival [32]. However, it is essential to note that Rotte et al. used tumor tissue microarrays and peroxidase produced using 3,3-diaminobenzidine; therefore, MMP-2 measurement in pigmented lesions could be limited in distinguishing melanoma cells.

Furthermore, there have been recent studies on MMPs as potential melanoma biomarkers and immunotherapeutic targets. For example, the MMP-2 activator, MT1-MMP, has a higher expression in early melanoma than in nevi; moreover, it continues to increase with disease progression, indicating poor patient outcomes [29]. Additionally, MMP-12 is strongly associated with invasion and metastasis in cutaneous melanoma compared with normal skin. Additionally, patients with high MMP-12 levels have poor OS [28].

Other proteins closely regulate MMP activity, ensuring steady-state conditions between ECM’s degradative and reconstructive processes [108]. MMPs are regulated by a type of endogenous inhibitor known as TIMP, which has a role in activating and inactivating MMPs [109]. The numerous structures that characterize MMPs allow them to perform multiple roles that influence various processes such as cell behavior, apoptosis, and cell proliferation. MMPs have been found to promote tumor progression by degrading surrounding tissues, modulating growth factors and membrane receptors, as well as inflammatory proteins, adhesion molecules, and chemo-attractive proteins, according to oncological studies [110–112]. MMPs are also involved in the alteration of the ECM of the skin. MMPs play a role in skin matrix remodeling by degrading and reconstructing matrix components. In addition, multiple studies have shown that MMPs play a critical role in melanoma, with tumor cells and tumor microenvironment changes linked to MMP and TIMP deregulation [113].

MMP inhibitors (MMPi) are substances that interact with MMPs to modulate their actions. There are two types of MMP inhibitors: synthetic inhibitors and endogenous inhibitors [114]. Since the 1990s, pharmaceutical companies have been developing MMPi medicines to treat diseases in which proteinases are dysregulated, such as cancer. Marimastat (BB-2516) and Cipemastat (Ro 32-3555) were the first, both containing the hydroxamate group [115]. Chirvi et al. (1994) investigated the efficacy of Batimastat, a first-generation MMP inhibitor, in C57BL/6N mice injected with B16-BL6 melanoma cells to assess tumor growth inhibition. The results demonstrated a reduction in lung metastasis and solid tumor dimensions when the medicine was administrated after inoculation [116]. Another in vivo investigation was conducted on a melanoma animal model to determine the efficacy of Batimastat when combined with IL12; the results demonstrated substantial antitumoral and antiangiogenic effects in this scenario [117].

The preferred contemporary path for treating advanced melanoma patients is utilizing an amalgamation of medicines that impede the kinase actions of BRAF and anti-MEK. Dabrafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, is employed in specific BRAF^V600E-mutated metastatic or advanced melanoma patients. Similarly, Trametinib, a MEK-1/2 inhibitor, is also available in metastatic or advanced cases with BRAF^V600E mutation. These therapeutic boulevards have paved the way for recognizing potential biomarkers which ultimately can be utilized to assess the therapeutic response of these treatments. Recent research has focused on identifying circulating-free (cfDNA) BRAF^V600E mutation in patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Circulating-free (cfDNA) BRAF^V600E mutation was linked to a bad prognosis. Also, a positive correlation betwixt circulating-free (cfDNA) BRAF mutation and MMP-protein was detected. This has emphasized the roles of MMPs and cfDNA in establishing resistance or response to treatment [118–120].

11. Tyrosinase

Tyrosinase is a melanin-producing enzyme found in melanocytes and melanoma cells. Nested reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can detect tyrosinase mRNA grades in the blood samples of patients with melanoma and late-stage metastatic illness. Preliminary studies have indicated that tyrosinase is a sovereign predictive pathfinder for tumor progression [121, 122]. Šamija et al. reported that tyrosine mRNA is associated with reduced OS [123]. Salvianti et al. studied the diagnostic relevance of hypermethylated Ras association domain family one isoform A promoter as a neoplasm-related, methylated, and cell-free DNA marker [124]. This marker can distinguish between healthy controls and patients with melanoma.

Moreover, tyrosinase has been considered a tissue biomarker. Lin et al. published a novel approach for mapping the distribution and expression of type 3 copper protein tyrosinase on tissue microarrays of skin samples of patients with melanoma using scanning electrochemical microscopy [125]. The transition from a homogeneous tyrosinase distribution in stage II to a more heterogeneous pattern in stage III was visualized. Notably, optically interfering species, including melanin, do not hinder scanning electrochemical microscopy. This marker could allow the diagnosis of nonmetastatic and metastatic melanoma stages as a complementary prognostic technique.

12. Other Enzyme Markers

Studies currently investigate other potential melanoma enzyme markers, including CD10, legumain, and proteases cathepsin K [25, 26, 30]. However, it is difficult to determine their utility as biomarkers given the scarce research. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH-1) is a potential therapeutic target and biomarker of stem cells in several human neoplasms, including melanoma [126, 127]. According to Taylor et al., ALDH-1 could be an independent prognostic factor in melanoma [128].

13. S100 Proteins

Since the secretion and expression of S100 proteins are significantly higher in cancerous tissues than in normal tissues, the S100 protein family has become a distinct diagnostic indicator in cutaneous melanoma throughout the last decade [129–131]. Patients with melanoma have increased serum levels of S100 proteins, especially S100B, with higher strata linked to a worse prognosis [132, 133], DFS, and OS [134]. S100B was associated with lower OS and distant metastasis-free survival in a contemporary prognostic assessment of patients treated with IFN-α2b than stage II and III patients. Serum S100B levels correspond to disease development throughout time; moreover, they increase with disease severity [135]. False-positive results can result from harm to the cerebral parenchyma, hepatic region, or kidney and during infections [136–138].

Wevers et al. reported a strong correlation of S100B levels with melanoma prognosis in stage IIIB–IIIC patients. Preoperative and postoperative (day 2) S100B readings were strongly correlated with DFS. S100B levels could be the most significant independent predictor of disease-specific survival [139]. Increased S100B protein expression has been observed in 74%–100% of patients with stage IV melanoma [140, 141]. Several studies have reported a positive correlation between DFS and advanced disease stage [16, 141, 142]. S100A8/A9 is a unique predictive guide for ipilimumab treatment in metastatic stage IV melanoma patients. Nonresponding and responding patients with melanoma significantly increased and decreased S100A8/A9 serum levels after the first ipilimumab infusion [22]. Skaleinius [143] reported that patients with a high baseline S100 had a significantly shorter OS () than those with a normal S100. The aforementioned analyses were performed on 41.4% of individuals with a high baseline S100. However, there remains a need for further research on S100 as a possible clinical tool [143].

14. Immunotherapy and Biomarkers

Targeted immunotherapy in patients with melanoma depends on precise characters of neoplasm. Circulating-free (cfDNA) BRAF mutation and MMP-protein detection processes have attempted to detect exact prognoses in those cases. However, the lack of biomarker response in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations is a real challenge. In patients with PD-1/PD-1 inhibitors, immunohistochemistry(IHC) staining can be employed to determine the PD-L1 expression [144]. A recent study in anti-PD-1 responding cases detected novel links between IL-6, IL-10, desmocollin 3, proline-rich acidic protein 1, C-C motif chemokine ligands, vascular endothelial growth factor, and progression-free survival. Elevated circulating PD-1 was also demonstrated in this landmark study. This milestone research has described the capability of plasma proteomics as a liquid biopsy approach. Identifying these protein biomarkers has laid the foundation of future research in patients of metastatic cutaneous melanoma as they can be pivotal to defining the prognosis for anti-PD-1 treatment [145].

15. Conclusion

Several tissue and serum biomarkers can predict overall survival and disease progression. There is current research for identifying, establishing, and validating the best biomarker combination for multimarker profiling in patients with melanoma. Proteomic profiling studies could identify melanoma-specific markers for improved prognosis. Furthermore, identifying biomarkers that predict response to medicines, especially new immunotherapies, is the next step in melanoma biomarker research, which will allow clinicians to choose the best treatment option.

Data Availability

Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Additional Points

Authorship. The named author meets the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship of this article, takes responsibility for the integrity of the work, and has given her approval for this version to be published.

Ethical Approval

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Conflicts of Interest

No competing interests were present.

References

N. L. Bolick and A. C. Geller, “Epidemiology of melanoma,” Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 57–72, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Carr, C. Smith, and J. Wernberg, “Epidemiology and risk factors of melanoma,” The Surgical Clinics of North America, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. H. Matthews, W.-Q. Li, A. A. Qureshi, M. A. Weinstock, and E. Cho, “Epidemiology of melanoma,” in Cutaneous Melanoma: Etiology and Therapy, pp. 3–22, Codon Publications, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
The Skin Cancer Foundation, 2021, Skin Cancer Facts & Statistics. https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/.
L. G. A. Schafer, Goldman-Cecil medicine, vol. 2, Dejan Grafica E Editora, 25th edition, 2015, https://www.elsevier.com/books/goldman-cecil-medicine-2-volume-set/goldman/978-1-4557-5017-7.
A. E. Chang, L. H. Karnell, and H. R. Menck, “The National Cancer Data Base report on cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma,” Cancer Interdiscip Int J Am Cancer Soc, vol. 83, no. 8, pp. 1664–1678, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. R. Shaikh, S. W. Dusza, M. A. Weinstock, S. A. Oliveria, A. C. Geller, and A. C. Halpern, “Melanoma thickness and survival trends in the United States, 1989-2009,” JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst, vol. 108, no. 1, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Filippi, P. Fava, S. Badellino, C. Astrua, U. Ricardi, and P. Quaglino, “Radiotherapy and immune checkpoints inhibitors for advanced melanoma,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Weinstein, J. Leininger, C. Hamby, and B. Safai, “Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in melanoma,” The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 13–24, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Vereecken, F. Cornelis, N. Van Baren, V. Vandersleyen, and J.-F. Baurain, “A synopsis of serum biomarkers in cutaneous melanoma patients,” Dermatology Research and Practice, vol. 2012, Article ID 260643, 7 pages, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Tandler, B. Mosch, and J. Pietzsch, “Protein and non-protein biomarkers in melanoma: a critical update,” Amino Acids, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2203–2230, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Palmer, L. A. Erickson, I. Ichetovkin, D. J. Knauer, and S. N. Markovic, “Circulating serologic and molecular biomarkers in malignant melanoma,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 86, pp. 981–990, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mimeault and S. K. Batra, “Novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets for optimizing the therapeutic management of melanomas,” World J Clin Oncol, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 32–42, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. C. Willis, G. Johnson, J. Wang, and C. Cohen, “SOX10,” Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 109–112, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-L. Chen, W.-S. Chen, J. Li, A. C. Lind, and D. Lu, “Diagnostic utility of neural stem and progenitor cell markers nestin and SOX2 in distinguishing nodal melanocytic nevi from metastatic melanomas,” Modern Pathology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 44–53, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Damude, H. J. Hoekstra, E. Bastiaannet, A. C. Muller Kobold, S. Kruijff, and K. P. Wevers, “The predictive power of serum S-100B for non-sentinel node positivity in melanoma patients,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 545–551, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Zarogoulidis, K. Tsakiridis, C. Karapantzou et al., “Use of proteins as biomarkers and their role in carcinogenesis,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–18, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Azimi, M. Pernemalm, M. Frostvik Stolt et al., “Proteomics analysis of melanoma metastases: association between S100A13 expression and chemotherapy resistance,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 110, no. 10, pp. 2489–2495, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Paulitschke, V. Haudek-Prinz, J. Griss et al., “Functional classification of cellular proteome profiles support the identification of drug resistance signatures in melanoma cells,” Journal of Proteome Research, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 3264–3276, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhu, T. Ito, T. Nakahara et al., “Upregulation of S100P, receptor for advanced glycation end products and ezrin in malignant melanoma,” The Journal of Dermatology, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 973–979, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Hibino, M. Sakaguchi, S. Miyamoto et al., “S100A9 is a novel ligand of EMMPRIN that promotes melanoma metastasis,” Cancer Research, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 172–183, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gebhardt, A. Sevko, H. Jiang et al., “Myeloid cells and related chronic inflammatory factors as novel predictive markers in melanoma treatment with ipilimumab,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 24, pp. 5453–5459, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. V. de Lecea, T. Palomares, D. al Kassam et al., “Indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase as a prognostic and follow-up marker in melanoma. A comparative study with LDH and S100B,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 636–642, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Thomas-Pfaab, J.-P. Annereau, C. Munsch et al., “CD10 expression by melanoma cells is associated with aggressive behavior _in vitro_ and predicts rapid metastatic progression in humans,” Journal of Dermatological Science, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 105–113, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Long, M. Ilie, C. Bence et al., “High expression of TRF2, SOX10, and CD10 in circulating tumor microemboli detected in metastatic melanoma patients. A potential impact for the assessment of disease aggressiveness,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1022–1030, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Rao, Y. Wang, Q.-Y. Xia et al., “Cathepsin K in the immunohistochemical diagnosis of melanocytic lesions,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1132–1139, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Lugowska, M. Kowalska, M. Fuksiewicz et al., “Serum markers in early-stage and locally advanced melanoma,” Tumour Biology, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 8277–8285, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhang, S. Zhu, Y. Yang, X. Ma, and S. Guo, “Matrix metalloproteinase-12 expression is increased in cutaneous melanoma and associated with tumor aggressiveness,” Tumour Biology, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 8593–8600, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shaverdashvili, P. Wong, J. Ma, K. Zhang, I. Osman, and B. Bedogni, “MT1-MMP modulates melanoma cell dissemination and metastasis through activation of MMP2 and RAC1,” Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 287–296, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Wu, L. Sun, Y. Wu et al., “Prognostic value of legumain in uveal melanoma,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 2377–2384, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kamyab-Hesari, N. Mohtasham, N. Aghazadeh, M. Biglarian, B. Memar, and H. Kadeh, “The expression of MMP-2 and Ki-67 in head and neck melanoma, and their correlation with clinic-pathologic indices,” Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 696–700, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Rotte, M. Martinka, and G. Li, “MMP2 expression is a prognostic marker for primary melanoma patients,” Cellular Oncology, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 207–216, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Moogk, I. P. da Silva, M. W. Ma et al., “Melanoma expression of matrix metalloproteinase-23 is associated with blunted tumor immunity and poor responses to immunotherapy,” Journal of Translational Medicine, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 342, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cerroni, R. Barnhill, D. Elder et al., “Melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant Potential,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 314–326, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. Elmore, R. L. Barnhill, D. E. Elder et al., “Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study,” BMJ, vol. 357, p. j2813, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Gerami, K. Busam, A. Cochran et al., “Histomorphologic assessment and interobserver diagnostic reproducibility of atypical spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms with long-term follow-up,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 934–940, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Bush, E. L. Hunt, and G. R. Fraga, “BAM! Utilizing the frequency of benign, atypical and malignant diagnoses for quality improvement in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 712–716, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Ko, B. Matharoo-Ball, S. D. Billings et al., “Diagnostic distinction of malignant melanoma and benign nevi by a gene expression signature and correlation to clinical outcomes,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1107–1113, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. Clarke, D. D. Flake, K. Busam et al., “An independent validation of a gene expression signature to differentiate malignant melanoma from benign melanocytic nevi,” Cancer, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 617–628, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. Clarke, M. B. Warf, D. D. Flake et al., “Clinical validation of a gene expression signature that differentiates benign nevi from malignant melanoma,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 244–252, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Ferris, B. Jansen, J. Ho et al., “Utility of a noninvasive 2-gene molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma and effect on the decision to biopsy,” JAMA Dermatology, vol. 153, no. 7, pp. 675–680, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Gerami, Z. Yao, D. Polsky et al., “Development and validation of a noninvasive 2-gene molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 114–120.e2, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Gerami, R. W. Cook, J. Wilkinson et al., “Development of a prognostic genetic signature to predict the metastatic risk associated with cutaneous melanoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 175–183, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. O. Emanuel, A. A. Andea, C. I. Vidal et al., “Evidence behind the use of molecular tests in melanocytic lesions and practice patterns of these tests by dermatopathologists,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 839–846, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Livak and T. D. Schmittgen, “Analysis of Relative Gene Expression Data Using Real-Time Quantitative PCR and the 2^−ΔΔC_T Method,” Methods, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 402–408, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Lee, G. F. Murphy, and C. G. Lian, “Melanoma epigenetics: novel mechanisms, markers, and medicines,” Laboratory Investigation, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 822–838, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Yang, R. Guo, H. Wang et al., “Tet enzymes regulate telomere maintenance and chromosomal stability of mouse ESCs,” Cell Reports, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1809–1821, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. R. Kafer, X. Li, T. Horii et al., “5-Hydroxymethylcytosine marks sites of DNA damage and promotes genome stability,” Cell Reports, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1283–1292, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Gambichler, M. Sand, and M. Skrygan, “Loss of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine and ten-eleven translocation 2 protein expression in malignant melanoma,” Melanoma Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 218–220, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Haffner, A. Chaux, A. K. Meeker et al., “Global 5-hydroxymethylcytosine content is significantly reduced in tissue stem/progenitor cell compartments and in human cancers,” Oncotarget, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 627–637, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. G. Lian, Y. Xu, C. Ceol et al., “Loss of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is an epigenetic hallmark of melanoma,” Cell, vol. 150, no. 6, pp. 1135–1146, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Pavlova, S. Fraitag, and D. Hohl, “5-Hydroxymethylcytosine expression in proliferative nodules arising within congenital nevi allows differentiation from malignant melanoma,” The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 136, no. 12, pp. 2453–2461, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Rodić, J. Zampella, R. Sharma, K. H. Burns, and J. M. Taube, “Diagnostic utility of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine immunohistochemistry in melanocytic proliferations,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 807–814, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Uchiyama, H. Uhara, A. Uchiyama et al., “5-Hydroxymethylcytosine as a useful marker to differentiate between malignant melanomas and benign melanocytic nevi,” Journal of Dermatological Science, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 161–163, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. W. Cook, B. Middlebrook, J. Wilkinson et al., “Analytic validity of DecisionDx-Melanoma, a gene expression profile test for determining metastatic risk in melanoma patients,” Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Zager, B. R. Gastman, S. Leachman et al., “Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients,” BMC Cancer, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 130, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Gastman, J. S. Zager, J. L. Messina et al., “Performance of a 31-gene expression profile test in cutaneous melanomas of the head and neck,” Head & Neck, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 871–879, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Gastman, P. Gerami, S. J. Kurley, R. W. Cook, S. Leachman, and J. T. Vetto, “Identification of patients at risk of metastasis using a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in subpopulations of melanoma patients with favorable outcomes by standard criteria,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 149–157.e4, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Keller, T. L. Schwartz, J. M. Lizalek et al., “Prospective validation of the prognostic 31-gene expression profiling test in primary cutaneous melanoma,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2205–2212, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Podlipnik, C. Carrera, A. Boada et al., “Early outcome of a 31‐gene expression profile test in 86AJCCstageIB‐IImelanoma patients. A prospective multicentre cohort study,” J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 857–862, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Vereecken, M. Laporte, and M. Heenen, “Significance of cell kinetic parameters in the prognosis of malignant melanoma: a review,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 139–145, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Gimotty, P. van Belle, D. E. Elder et al., “Biologic and prognostic significance of dermal Ki67 expression, mitoses, and tumorigenicity in thin invasive cutaneous melanoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 31, pp. 8048–8056, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-O. Frahm, C. Schubert, R. Parwaresch, and P. Rudolph, “High proliferative activity may predict early metastasis of thin melanomas,” Human Pathology, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 1376–1381, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. Ladstein, I. M. Bachmann, O. Straume, and L. A. Akslen, “Ki-67 expression is superior to mitotic count and novel proliferation markers PHH3, MCM4 and mitosin as a prognostic factor in thick cutaneous melanoma,” BMC Cancer, vol. 10, no. 1, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Barry, S. K. Sinha, M. B. Leader, and E. W. Kay, “Poor agreement in recognition of abnormal mitoses: requirement for standardized and robust definitions,” Histopathology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 68–72, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. Kruper, F. R. Spitz, B. J. Czerniecki et al., “Predicting sentinel node status in AJCC stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma,” Cancer, vol. 107, no. 10, pp. 2436–2445, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Balch, J. E. Gershenwald, S. Soong et al., “Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors among 2,313 patients with stage III melanoma: comparison of nodal micrometastases versus macrometastases,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 14, pp. 2452–2459, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Davies, G. R. Bignell, C. Cox et al., “Mutations of the _BRAF_ gene in human cancer,” Nature, vol. 417, no. 6892, pp. 949–954, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Shinozaki, A. Fujimoto, D. L. Morton, and D. S. B. Hoon, “Incidence of BRAF oncogene mutation and clinical relevance for primary cutaneous melanomas,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1753–1757, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Curtin, J. Fridlyand, T. Kageshita et al., “Distinct sets of genetic alterations in melanoma,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 353, no. 20, pp. 2135–2147, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Akslen, S. Angelini, O. Straume et al., “BRAF and NRAS mutations are frequent in nodular melanoma but are not associated with tumor cell proliferation or patient survival,” The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 312–317, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. B. Chapman, A. Hauschild, C. Robert et al., “Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 364, no. 26, pp. 2507–2516, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Mintz-Weber and J. P. Johnson, “Identification of the Elements Regulating the Expression of the Cell Adhesion Molecule MCAM/MUC18:,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 44, pp. 34672–34680, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bar-Eli, “Role of AP-2 in tumor growth and metastasis of human melanoma,” Cancer Metastasis Reviews, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 377–385, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Rummel, C. Sers, and J. P. Johnson, “Phorbol ester and cyclic AMP-mediated regulation of the melanoma-associated cell adhesion molecule MUC18/MCAM,” Cancer Research, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 2218–2223, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
L. M. Shih, M. Y. Hsu, J. P. Palazzo, and M. Herlyn, “The cell-cell adhesion receptor Mel-CAM acts as a tumor suppressor in breast carcinoma,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 745–751, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
R. A. Pearl, M. D. Pacifico, P. I. Richman, G. D. Wilson, and R. Grover, “Stratification of patients by melanoma cell adhesion molecule (MCAM) expression on the basis of risk: implications for sentinel lymph node biopsy,” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 265–271, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Pacifico, R. Grover, P. I. Richman, F. M. Daley, F. Buffa, and G. D. Wilson, “Development of a tissue array for primary melanoma with long-term follow-up: discovering melanoma cell adhesion molecule as an important prognostic marker,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 367–375, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-S. Hong and J.-P. Saint-Jeannet, “Sox proteins and neural crest development,” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 694–703, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Kamachi and H. Kondoh, “Sox proteins: regulators of cell fate specification and differentiation,” Development, vol. 140, no. 20, pp. 4129–4144, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ballotti, “Identification of melanoma initiating cells: does CD271 have a future?” Future Oncology, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1587–1590, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Madjd, E. Erfani, E. Gheytanchi, M. Moradi-Lakeh, A. Shariftabrizi, and M. Asadi-Lari, “Expression of CD133 cancer stem cell marker in melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The International Journal of Biological Markers, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 118–125, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Cheli, V. F. Bonnazi, A. Jacquel et al., “CD271 is an imperfect marker for melanoma initiating cells,” Oncotarget, vol. 5, no. 14, pp. 5272–5283, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Ries, “Cytokine functions of TIMP-1,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 659–672, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Willmes, R. Kumar, J. C. Becker et al., “SERPINB1 expression is predictive for sensitivity and outcome of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in melanoma,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 10117–10132, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Martinoli, S. Gandini, C. Luise et al., “Maspin expression and melanoma progression: a matter of sub-cellular localization,” Modern Pathology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 412–419, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ribero, R. Senetta, S. Osella-Abate et al., “Prognostic role of maspin expression in melanoma: probably far from clinical use,” Histopathology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 158–162, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Meyer, T. Vogt, M. Landthaler et al., “Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARG) are stage-dependent prognostic markers of malignant melanoma,” PPAR Research, vol. 2010, 11 pages, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Bosserhoff, “Novel biomarkers in malignant melanoma,” Clinica Chimica Acta, vol. 367, no. 1–2, pp. 28–35, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Becker, M. D. Siegelin, R. Rompel, A. H. Enk, and T. Gaiser, “COX-2 expression in malignant melanoma: a novel prognostic marker?” Melanoma Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 8–16, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ł. Kużbicki, D. Lange, and B. W. Chwirot, “Cyclooxygenase-2 immunohistochemistry in human melanoma: differences between results obtained with different antibodies,” Melanoma Research, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 294–300, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. de Souza do Nascimento, R. Carlos, W. Delgado-Azañero et al., “Immunohistochemical expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in oral nevi and melanoma,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 440–443, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zelenay, A. G. van der Veen, J. P. Böttcher et al., “Cyclooxygenase-dependent tumor growth through evasion of immunity,” Cell, vol. 162, no. 6, pp. 1257–1270, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ł. Kuźbicki, D. Lange, A. Stanek-Widera, and B. W. Chwirot, “Intratumoral expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is a negative prognostic marker for patients with cutaneous melanoma,” Melanoma Research, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 448–456, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hennequart, L. Pilotte, S. Cane et al., “Constitutive IDO1 expression in human tumors is driven by cyclooxygenase-2 and mediates intrinsic immune resistance,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 695–709, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Buzharevski, S. Paskas, M. Sárosi et al., “Carboranyl analogues of celecoxib with potent cytostatic activity against human melanoma and colon cancer cell lines,” ChemMedChem, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 315–321, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
ClinicalTrials gov, “Prostaglandin inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma,” 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03396952?term=cox-2&cond=Melanoma.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Hofmann, F. Gussmann, A. Fritsche et al., “Diagnostic value of melanoma inhibitory activity serum marker in the follow-up of patients with stage I or II cutaneous melanoma,” Melanoma Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 17–23, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Hofmann, B. Schicke, A. Fritsch et al., “Impact of lymph node metastases on serum level of melanoma inhibitory activity in stage III melanoma patients,” The Journal of Dermatology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 880–886, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Kluger, K. Hoyt, A. Bacchiocchi et al., “Plasma markers for identifying patients with metastatic melanoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 2417–2425, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kelderman, B. Heemskerk, H. van Tinteren et al., “Lactate dehydrogenase as a selection criterion for ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 449–458, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Martens, K. Wistuba-Hamprecht, M. G. Foppen et al., “Baseline peripheral blood biomarkers associated with clinical outcome of advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2908–2918, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Petrelli, M. Cabiddu, A. Coinu et al., “Prognostic role of lactate dehydrogenase in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 76 studies,” Acta Oncologica, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 961–970, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. M. Fischer, F. C. L. Carapeto, A. Y. Joon et al., “Molecular and immunological associations of elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase in metastatic melanoma patients: a fresh look at an old biomarker,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 9, no. 22, pp. 8650–8661, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Stamenkovic, “Extracellular matrix remodelling: the role of matrix metalloproteinases,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 200, no. 4, pp. 448–464, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Stamenkovic, “Matrix metalloproteinases in tumor invasion and metastasis,” Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 415–433, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Nikkola, P. Vihinen, T. Vlaykova, M. Hahka-Kemppinen, V.-M. Kähäri, and S. Pyrhönen, “High expression levels of collagenase-1 and stromelysin-1 correlate with shorter disease-free survival in human metastatic melanoma,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 432–438, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Lu, K. Takai, V. M. Weaver, and Z. Werb, “Extracellular matrix degradation and remodeling in development and disease,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 3, no. 12, p. a005058, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Rohani and W. C. Parks, “Matrix remodeling by MMPs during wound repair,” Matrix Biology, vol. 44–46, p. 113, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
O. Bashir, J. Cao, and S. Zucker, “Clinical relevance of MMP and TIMP measurements in cancer tissue,” Matrix Proteases in Health and Disease, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Cathcart, A. Pulkoski-Gross, S. Zucker, and J. Cao, “Therapeutics targeting matrix metalloproteinases,” Matrix Metalloproteinase Biology: Sagi/Matrix Metalloproteinase Biology, vol. 85, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zucker and J. Vacirca, “Role of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) in colorectal cancer,” Cancer Metastasis Reviews, vol. 23, no. 1/2, pp. 101–117, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Villanueva and M. Herlyn, “Melanoma and the tumor microenvironment,” Current Oncology Reports, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 439–446, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Acharya, J. Venitz, W. D. Figg, and A. Sparreboom, “Chemically modified tetracyclines as inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases,” Drug Resistance Updates, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 195–208, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. K. Underwood, D. Min, J. G. Lyons, and T. W. Hambley, “The interaction of metal ions and Marimastat with matrix metalloproteinase 9,” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 95, no. 2–3, pp. 165–170, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. S. Chirvi, A. Garofalo, M. J. Crimmin et al., “Inhibition of the metastatic spread and growth of B16-BL6 murine melanoma by a synthetic matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 460–464, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Dabrowska, A. Giermasz, M. Marczak, J. Gołab, and M. Jakóbisiak, “Potentiated antitumor effects of interleukin 12 and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor batimastat against B16F10 melanoma in mice,” Anticancer Research, vol. 20, no. 1A, pp. 391–394, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Salemi, L. Falzone, G. Madonna et al., “MMP-9 as a candidate marker of response to BRAF inhibitors in melanoma patients with BRAFV600E mutation detected in circulating-free DNA,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 9, p. 856, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Napoli, C. Scuderi, G. Gattuso et al., “Functional roles of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in melanoma,” Cell, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 1151, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Wellbrock and I. Arozarena, “The complexity of the ERK/MAP-kinase pathway and the treatment of melanoma skin cancer,” Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology, vol. 4, p. 33, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Quaglino, S. Osella-Abate, N. Cappello et al., “Prognostic relevance of baseline and sequential peripheral blood tyrosinase expression in 200 consecutive advanced metastatic melanoma patients,” Melanoma Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 75–82, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Visús, R. Andres, J. I. Mayordomo et al., “Prognostic role of circulating melanoma cells detected by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for tyrosinase mRNA in patients with melanoma,” Melanoma Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 83–89, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Samija, J. Lukac, J. Marić-Brozić et al., “Prognostic value of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor and tyrosinase as markers for circulating tumor cells detection in patients with melanoma,” Melanoma Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 293–302, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Salvianti, C. Orlando, D. Massi et al., “Tumor-related methylated cell-free DNA and circulating tumor cells in melanoma,” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, vol. 2, p. 76, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
T.-E. Lin, A. Bondarenko, A. Lesch, H. Pick, F. Cortés-Salazar, and H. H. Girault, “Monitoring tyrosinase expression in non-metastatic and metastatic melanoma tissues by scanning electrochemical microscopy,” Angewandte Chemie (International Ed. in English), vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 3813–3816, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Yue, Z.-M. Huang, S. Fong et al., “Targeting ALDH1 to decrease tumorigenicity, growth and metastasis of human melanoma,” Melanoma Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 138–148, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Luo, K. Dallaglio, Y. Chen et al., “ALDH1A isozymes are markers of human melanoma stem cells and potential therapeutic targets,” Stem Cells, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 2100–2113, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Taylor, R. M. Abraham, E. Tahirovic et al., “High ALDH1 expression correlates with better prognosis in tumorigenic malignant melanoma,” Modern Pathology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 634–639, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. E. Davey, P. Murmann, M. Hoechli, T. Tanaka, and C. W. Heizmann, “Calcium-dependent translocation of S100A11 requires tubulin filaments,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, Molecular Cell Research, vol. 1498, no. 2–3, pp. 220–232, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-L. Hsieh, B. W. Schäfer, J. A. Cox, and C. W. Heizmann, “S100A13 and S100A6 exhibit distinct translocation pathways in endothelial cells,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 115, no. 15, pp. 3149–3158, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Petersson, E. Shubbar, L. Enerbäck, and C. Enerbäck, “Expression patterns of S100 proteins in melanocytes and melanocytic lesions,” Melanoma Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 215–225, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Oberholzer, M. Urosevic, H. C. Steinert, and R. Dummer, “Baseline staging of melanoma with unknown primary site: the value of serum S100 protein and positron emission tomography,” Dermatology, vol. 217, no. 4, pp. 351–355, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Beyeler, S. Waldispühl, K. Strobel, H. I. Joller-Jemelka, G. Burg, and R. Dummer, “Detection of melanoma relapse: first comparative analysis on imaging techniques versus S100 protein,” Dermatology, vol. 213, no. 3, pp. 187–191, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kruijff, E. Bastiaannet, A. C. Muller Kobold, R. J. van Ginkel, A. J. H. Suurmeijer, and H. J. Hoekstra, “S-100B concentrations predict disease-free survival in stage III melanoma patients,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 3455–3462, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Bouwhuis, S. Suciu, W. Kruit et al., “Prognostic value of serial blood S100B determinations in stage IIB-III melanoma patients: A corollary study to EORTC trial 18952,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 361–368, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Molina, J. Navarro, X. Filella, T. Castel, and A. M. Ballesta, “S-100 protein serum levels in patients with benign and malignant diseases: false-positive results related to liver and renal function,” Tumor Biology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 39–44, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Michetti, V. Corvino, M. C. Geloso et al., “The S100B protein in biological fluids: more than a lifelong biomarker of brain distress,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 120, no. 5, pp. 644–659, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. N. Tsoporis, F. Mohammadzadeh, and T. G. Parker, “S100B: a multifunctional role in cardiovascular pathophysiology,” Amino Acids, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 843–847, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. P. Wevers, S. Kruijff, M. J. Speijers, E. Bastiaannet, A. C. Muller Kobold, and H. J. Hoekstra, “S-100B: a stronger prognostic biomarker than LDH in stage IIIB-C melanoma,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2772–2779, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Weide, M. Elsässer, P. Büttner et al., “Serum markers lactate dehydrogenase and S100B predict independently disease outcome in melanoma patients with distant metastasis,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 422–428, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Nikolin, I. Djan, J. Trifunovic et al., “MIA, S100 and LDH as important predictors of overall survival of patients with stage IIb and IIc melanoma,” Journal of BUON, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 691–697, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kruijff and H. J. Hoekstra, “The current status of S-100B as a biomarker in melanoma,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 281–285, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Skaleinius, Immunologic phenotyping and S100 as biomarkers for response to anti-PD1 therapy in metastatic melanoma: A retrospective analysis, University of Gothenburg, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Degree Project in Medicine by Department of Oncology, 2018.
G. C. Leonardi, S. Candido, L. Falzone, D. A. Spandidos, and M. Libra, “Cutaneous melanoma and the immunotherapy revolution (Review),” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 609–618, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Babačić, J. Lehtiö, Y. Pico de Coaña, M. Pernemalm, and H. Eriksson, “In-depth plasma proteomics reveals increase in circulating PD-1 during anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma,” Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, vol. 8, no. 1, p. e000204, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Piyu Parth Naik. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

853

Downloads

691

Citations