Sunrise in Melanoma Management: Time to Focus on Melanoma Burden in Asia

Boman Dhabhar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12670

2017-01-01

Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Melanoma incidence is considerably lower in East and Southeast Asia as compared to North America or Europe; according to the latest GLOBOCAN 2012 statistics, age-standardized rates of melanoma in the region averaged about 0.4–0.5/100 000 persons, as opposed to 8.6–13.8/100 000 persons for Europe and North America.1 This has contributed to a general lack of awareness about the disease, with the result that melanoma remains overlooked and undertreated in Asian populations. However, it should be noted that East and Southeast Asia is home to almost one-third of the global population, and therefore a significant burden of disease exists in terms of absolute patient numbers.1 Furthermore, the clinical evidence indicates that Asian melanoma patients typically present with more advanced disease, and their prognosis is generally worse than Caucasian patients.2-7 In a study of 181 cutaneous malignant melanoma patients in Taiwan, 59% of patients for whom staging information was available presented with advanced melanoma (stage III or IV).2 Overall, median survival was 3.71 years, and the 5-year survival rate was just 45.63%, dropping to 34.7% and 0%, respectively, in patients with stage III and stage IV disease.2 In a Japanese study of 2978 cases collected from 2005–2013, 33% presented with advanced melanoma, and the disease-specific 5-year survival rate was 74% for stage IIIA, 58% for stage IIIB, 39% for stage IIIC and 21% for stage IV.3 And a recent Chinese study of 522 malignant melanoma patients found that 37.9% of patients presented with advanced disease, while overall median survival was 3.92 years and 5-year survival rates were 41.6%.4 In patients with stage III and IV disease, 5-year survival was only 38.4% and 4.6%, respectively.4 By contrast, data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics demonstrated that only 8% and 4% of melanoma patients presented with stage III and stage IV disease, respectively,5 and 5-year survival rates from the American Joint Committee on Cancer Melanoma Staging Database ranged from 46.6% to 69% for stage III patients and 5–10% for stage IV patients.6 Furthermore, the latest statistics from the American Cancer Society, respectively, show a 5-year and 10-year survival rate of up to 91% and 89% for melanoma in the United States, which is much higher compared to Asian patients.7 Therefore, there is an urgent need to promote early diagnosis and effective treatment of melanoma in Asian populations, in order to bridge the current gap in patient outcomes. However, the clinical evidence increasingly suggests that melanoma presents differently in Asian patients, with clear distinctions in prevalent subtype, site of presentation, risk factors and tumor mutations observed. In Caucasian melanoma patients, the prevalent histological subtype is superficial spreading melanoma, which occurs in about 70% of patients.8 About 15% of patients have nodular melanoma, 13% have lentigo maligna melanoma and just 2–3% develop acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM).8 In contrast, ALM is by far the predominant subtype in Asian melanoma patients. Studies from Taiwan,2 China,4 South Korea,9 Singapore10 and Japan11 indicate that ALM constitutes 41.8–65% of melanoma cases. Furthermore, primary melanomas mostly develop from the extremities in Asian populations (50.8–82.9% of cases),2-4 while epidemiological studies show that the trunk and lower extremities are the most common sites of melanoma presentation in Caucasian patients from Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States.12 Melanomas in Asian patients also appear to be thicker,9, 10 and are more likely to have ulcerations.4 Interestingly, US studies show that ALM remains the predominant type of melanoma in Asian-Americans, and sites of primary melanoma development tend to be on the extremities, particularly the feet and hands.13-15 Asian-American patients also present with more advanced disease, and have thicker melanomas with lesions that are more prone to ulceration.13 Importantly, prognosis remains significantly worse in Asian-American patients: 5-year survival rates were just 80.2%, compared to 89.6% for Caucasian patients (P < 0.001), and Asian-American patients had a 117% increased risk of mortality over Caucasian patients.13 This suggests that in melanoma patients of Asian ethnicity, genetics may play a key role in tumorigenesis, rather than sun-seeking behavior or lifestyle factors. In Western countries, known risk factors for melanoma include ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, Fitzpatrick skin types I–III, lighter hair and eye color, presence of atypical moles or numerous moles, melanocytic nevi and family history of melanoma.2, 8 However, UV exposure is not considered to be a driving factor of ALM2, 16; moreover, melanomas in Asian patients tend to develop at locations that are not sun-exposed, such as the sole or heel of the foot.8 An earlier study in Australian and Scottish patients found that penetrative trauma and exposure to agricultural chemicals represented the main risk factors for melanomas of the soles and palms,17 and this may be applicable to Asian patients as well. In Taiwan, the incidence of melanoma is higher in farmers, who often work without any protection to their hands and feet, and are frequently subject to penetrating injury and agrochemical exposure in these areas.2, 16 ALM was found to occur more frequently at the thumb, great toe, center of the heel and inner forefoot in Korean patients, and it has been demonstrated that long-term physical stress and trauma are the main risk factors for melanoma development at these weight-bearing areas.18 Statistics from the National Hospital of Dermatology and Venereology in Vietnam also show that the majority of melanoma patients in this population are farmers, with two-thirds of melanomas located on the heel, sole and interdigital areas, sites that are prone to long-term stress, physical trauma and exposure to pesticides or other agricultural chemicals (unpublished data). Interestingly, Indonesia represents somewhat of an anomaly in the Asia-Pacific region, with malignant spreading melanoma as the primary subtype, and one of the lowest nonfatal melanoma burdens per capita in the world; however, this may be due to underreporting, as melanoma incidence has been rising since government health insurance was made available.19 It has been reported that BRAF and NRAS mutations are present in almost 80% of all sporadic melanomas, with the NRAS Q61R (CAA/CGA) or Q61K (CAA/AAA) and BRAF V600E (GTG/GAG) mutations found to be the most common.20 NRAS Q61R/Q61K mutations may occur in up to 50% of melanoma cases,20 while BRAF mutations are found in about 31–50% of primary melanomas, with frequencies rising to 57% in metastatic melanomas.21, 22 More than 90% of melanomas with BRAF mutations have the V600E mutation.20, 21 However, BRAF and NRAS mutation frequencies are substantially lower in Asian melanoma patients. A recent study conducted in Taiwanese melanoma patients found that only 14.3% had BRAF mutations (of which 88.2% were BRAF V600E), and just 10.1% had NRAS mutations; moreover, patients with BRAF mutations were more likely to have thin melanomas and less ulceration, which differs from the prevailing phenotype usually observed in Asian patients.23 Among Chinese melanoma patients, the frequency of BRAF and NRAS mutations was found to be 25.5% and 7.2%, respectively.24 In Korean patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, BRAF mutations were detected in just 11.9–19.4% of patients.25-27 Japanese melanoma patients were found to have higher frequencies of BRAF mutations (30.4–41.8%),28, 29 probably due to an increase in UV exposure-related melanomas in recent years due to increases in sun-seeking behavior; however, for melanomas occurring on the most common locations for Asian populations – palms and soles, the frequency of BRAF and NRAS mutations dropped to 8.9% and 20.0%, respectively.28 These statistics confirm that common melanoma tumor mutations do not appear as frequently in Asian patients, suggesting that there is a distinct pathogenesis for which different treatment strategies are needed. Besides BRAF and NRAS mutations, commonly observed KIT mutations have been identified as potential anticancer targets in melanoma as well. The frequency of KIT mutations has been found to be higher in acral and mucosal melanomas compared to cutaneous melanomas,30, 31 and this observation also applies to Asian patients.28, 32 A Taiwanese study of 85 consecutive melanomas found that 25% of acral melanomas and 22% of mucosal melanomas harbored KIT mutations, in contrast to just 8% of such mutations in cutaneous melanomas.32 Similar results were observed in Japanese patients.28 This suggests that the known KIT inhibitor, imatinib, may be a potentially viable therapy. According to a phase II study conducted in 43 Chinese metastatic melanoma patients with KIT aberrations, 74.4% of which had acral or mucosal melanoma, up to 53.3% of patients attained partial response or stable disease.33 One-year overall survival rates were 51.0% for the entire cohort, rising to 63.5% among patients with partial response or stable disease.33 It should be noted that in a recent study of US patients with mucosal, acral or chronically sun-damaged metastatic melanoma, those with KIT mutations, as opposed to amplifications, were found to benefit most from imatinib treatment.34 In addition, it is known that the CDK 4/6 pathway is dysregulated in up to 90% of melanomas,35 suggesting that this could also be an effective target for melanoma therapy. Several selective CDK4/6 inhibitors are currently in development, and trials of combination therapy with MEK and CDK4 inhibitors for non-BRAF V600 mutant melanomas are also ongoing.35 Novel immuno-oncology therapies such as anti-CTLA4 antibodies (e.g. ipilimumab) and anti-PD1 antibodies (e.g. pembrolizumab and nivolumab) have recently achieved remarkable outcomes against advanced melanoma in clinical trials, with significant survival benefits and manageable safety profiles observed.36-41 Immuno-oncology therapies are listed in the latest 2015 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) cutaneous melanoma clinical guidelines as first-line therapy for melanoma treatment, alongside selective BRAF inhibitors (e.g. vemurafenib, encorafenib [LGX818] and dabrafenib) alone or in combination with MEK inhibitors such as binimetinib, cobimetinib and trametinib.42 However, BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations work best in patients with BRAF mutations,36 and the efficacy of combination treatment is yet to be investigated in Asian patients with lower rates of BRAF mutations; in addition, although anti-PD1 antibodies were first approved in Japan in July 2014,43 and anti-PD1 antibodies are recommended by the ESMO guidelines as the treatment of choice for BRAF-wild-type patients,36 their efficacy and safety have not been extensively studied in Asian melanoma patients as yet. Fortunately, after initial registration delays, anti-CTLA4 antibodies, anti-PD1 antibodies, BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors have been approved in a number of Asian countries, and several studies are now underway to examine the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of these novel treatments in a patient population that is distinctly different from Western melanoma patients in many ways. The clinical evidence derived from such studies could then serve as the foundation for the development of clinical practice guidelines targeted toward Asian patient populations. To improve the current standard of care and enhance outcomes in Asian melanoma patients, several issues must be effectively addressed. The lack of awareness and devoted specialists and clinics for the disease, the absence of reliable clinical data for novel treatments and the limited availability of the therapies themselves are all challenges that hinder timely access to optimal treatment for melanoma. The development of educational platforms and workshops for medical personnel would be a key step toward the training of melanoma specialists that could efficiently provide personalized treatment and proper management to patients, and further contribute to much-needed clinical trials. Considering that the population in Asia has been projected to grow by 44% during 2000–2050, melanoma cases can be expected to increase in tandem, and therefore a new paradigm for the management of melanoma in Asian populations is urgently needed to ensure that these patients can receive adequate care for their condition. Moreover, registry data from the Philippines indicate that < 20% of patients received surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy (data not published), and many Asian melanoma patients receive only palliative care, either because their disease is too advanced, or because access to targeted therapy or immunotherapy is restricted by affordability or regulation. Therefore, the authors seek to establish a working group composed of experts from the Asia region, in order to engage key stakeholders in the medical, industry and regulatory sectors, and bring about effective changes in clinical awareness, data availability and access to new therapies. The authors would like to thank Elsevier for providing assistance with the management of meeting minutes and recording files. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Sushant Dahiya and Mr. Bert Yu-Hung Chen for assisting with the drafting of the manuscript. John Wen-Cheng Chang: A consultant to Merck Sharp & Dohme and recipient of educational grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono for the Immuno-Oncology Center of Excellence at Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital. Jun Guo: Member of the consulting board of MSD, Novartis, Bayer and Pfizer. Chia-Yen Hung: No relationship to disclose. Si Lu: No relationship to disclose. Shin Sang Joon: No relationship to disclose. Richard Quek: Received grants and research support from Novartis; received honoraria and consultation fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and Roche; participated in company-sponsored speaking engagements with Novartis and MSD. Anthony Ying: No relationship to disclose. Ho Gwo Fuang: Advisory board member for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD and Bayer. Nguyen Huu Sau: No relationship to disclose. Boman Dhabhar: No relationship to disclose. Virote Sriuranpong: Compensated advisory position for MSD, Roche, Novartis and Taiho. Maria Luisa Tiambeng: Advisory board member of MSD Philippines. Nugroho Prayogo: No relationship to disclose. Naoya Yamazaki: Advisory board role of Chugai Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Honoraria from Chugai Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, AstraZeneca Japan, Boehringer Ingelheim and Maruho. Speaker's Bureau from Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Phama, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck Sharp & Dohme Administrative support: John Wen-Cheng Chang and Chia-Yen Hung. Manuscript writing: John Wen-Cheng Chang and Chia-Yen Hung. Final approval of manuscript: All authors.