BRAF Mutation Correlates with Worse Local-regional Control Following Radiation Therapy in Patients with Stage III Melanoma

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-369617/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

BRAF Mutation Correlates with Worse Local-regional Control Following Radiation Therapy in Patients with Stage III Melanoma

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-369617/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

In patients with stage III melanoma, the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after lymph node dissection (LND) may be currently considered in selected high-risk patients to improve local-regional control. Melanomas harbor BRAF mutations (BRAF+) in 40–50% of cases, the majority of which are on the V600E residue. This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes after RT between patients with BRAF + and BRAF- melanoma.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 105 Stage III melanoma patients treated at our institution with LND followed by adjuvant RT from 2006–2019. BRAF mutational status was determined on the primary skin or nodal tissue samples from all patients. We compared characteristics of the BRAF + and BRAF- groups using Fisher’s exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test and performed univariate and multivariate analysis using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards modeling with the clinical outcomes of local-regional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

Fifty-three (50%) patients harbored a BRAF mutation (92%, pV600E). BRAF + patients were younger and had primary tumors more commonly found in the trunk vs head and neck compared to BRAF- patients (p < 0.05). The 5 year local-regional control in the BRAF + patients was 60% compared to 81% in the BRAF- patients (HR 4.5, 95% CI 1.3–15.5, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in 5-year DMFS, DFS, and OS rates between the two BRAF patient groups. The presence of 4 or more positive LNs remained a significant prognostic factor for LRC, DFS, and OS in multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Stage III melanoma patients with BRAF mutation treated with adjuvant RT had > 4 times increased risk of loco-regional recurrence. These results could be useful for adjuvant RT consideration in lymph node positive melanoma patients and supports other data that BRAF mutation confers radiation resistance.

Oncology

Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging

radiation therapy (RT)

lymph node dissection (LND)

BRAF + and BRAF- melanoma

local-regional control (LRC)

distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS)

disease-free survival (DFS)

overall survival (OS)

In patients with melanoma, a common site of metastasis is the regional lymph node basin, and patients often undergo complete lymph node dissection (LND) to reduce risk of nodal recurrence. There is a significant risk of recurrence in Stage III (node-positive) melanoma patients even after LND, and 5-year survival rates range from 30–90% depending on features such as number of LNs involved, extracapsular extension, Breslow thickness, ulceration, etc.^1,2 One treatment option to improve local-regional control (LRC) following LND is adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). Adjuvant (post-operative) RT is considered for patients with pathologically positive nodes who also meet certain criteria for being high-risk for local recurrence.² These high-risk criteria are based on the phase III ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01 trial which showed improved nodal relapse-free survival in the adjuvant RT arm compared to the observation group.³

The BRAF gene encodes a protein kinase (MAPK) that regulates cellular growth and proliferation in tumor cells.⁴ Mutations in BRAF can cause constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway. The most common mutation in the BRAF gene found in melanoma patients is the substitution of a glutamic acid for a valine at the amino acid 600 position (V600E). Approximately 50% of melanomas harbor activating BRAF mutations, with 70–90% of these mutations being V600E.⁵ More recently, stage III melanoma patients with BRAF mutations will receive adjuvant treatment with either the combination BRAF and MEK inhibitors, dabrafenib and trametinib or immunotherapy.^6,7 BRAF wild-type patients will receive adjuvant immunotherapy with one of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, or the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, ipilimumab.^8–10 The benefit of adjuvant RT based on BRAF mutational status is unclear. In addition, preclinical data suggests that BRAF mutation can promote radiation resistance.¹¹ In this study, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of adjuvant RT on LRC along with other clinical outcomes in patients with BRAF + and BRAF- melanoma. Given the controversial nature of adjuvant RT, we sought to determine whether either of these subpopulations benefits more or less from adjuvant RT, and thereby would be more or less suitable for this therapy.

Patient Selection

This was an institutional review board (IRB) approved retrospective chart review. We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients with stage III melanoma defined as having one or more pathologically-positive lymph nodes and who received adjuvant RT at our institution from 2006-2018. Patients were excluded if they received simultaneous systemic chemotherapy at the time of adjuvant RT or if they had received previous RT in the nodal field. Ultimately, 105 patients were included in the final analysis who met the above criteria and had BRAF mutational status performed. For each patient, we collected data related to demographics, staging, pathology, BRAF mutational status, treatment, and outcomes.

Staging and Treatment

Clinical staging was done with physical exam and CT and/or MRI imaging. Pathologic staging was done after LND according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC 7^th ED) guidelines based on tumor invasion, lymph node involvement, and metastasis. All patients underwent LND prior to radiation therapy. The majority of patients received external beam radiation therapy based on two fractionation schemes: 30 Gy over 5 fractions (6 Gy/fraction) or 48 Gy over 20 fractions (2.4 Gy/fraction).

Pathologic Analysis

Pathologists specializing in melanoma at our institution examined the LND specimens using AJCC criteria. The features they assessed included tumor depth of invasion, ulceration in primary, site of LNs, number of LNs positive, number of LNs dissected, size of largest melanoma deposit, and extracapsular or extranodal invasion.

BRAF mutational status was determined from chart review and was obtained through either a PCR-based sequencing assay or FoundationOne^®genomic analysis that was requested by the provider team. Sequencing was performed on either the initial biopsy, re-excision specimen, or LND specimen. In the majority of cases, this PCR-based BRAF assay was ordered by the treating oncologist for clinical purposes. For PCR testing, genomic DNA was extracted from tumor tissue (fresh frozen, or formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue) and Exon 15 of the BRAF gene was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and subsequently a SNPlex and/or direct nucleotide sequencing by PCR-based cycle sequencing method was used to evaluate for point mutation in BRAF codon 600. Four of the 53 BRAF+ patients were found on FoundationOne^®testing to have a non-V600E mutation: V600K (2), (1) G466R (1), and K601N (1).

Statistical Analysis

We compared characteristics between patients who were BRAF+ and BRAF- using the Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We evaluated clinical outcomes of local-regional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Local and/or regional failures were defined as the interval from the date of LND to the date of recurrence found on clinical exam or CT imaging. DMFS was defined as the interval from the date of LND to the date of distant failure reported on clinical imaging or death from any cause. DFS was the interval from LND to local-regional recurrence or distant failure, whichever occurred first or death from any cause. OS was the time from LND to death from any cause. Patients who were alive at the last clinical follow-up visit were censored from the OS analysis at that time.

We performed a univariate analysis of variables associated with LRR, DF, DFS, and OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests. We then performed a multivariate analysis of variables associated with LRC, DMFS, DFS, and OS using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS Statistics 27. (IBM SPSS, Armonk, New York).

Patient and clinical characteristics:

One hundred and five patients with Stage III melanoma and available BRAF mutational status met the inclusion criteria for our study. The demographic, clinical, pathological, and treatment characteristics are displayed in Table 1. In this cohort, 53 (50%) patients were found to be positive for a BRAF mutation (BRAF+) and 52 (50%) were negative for a BRAF mutation (BRAF-). The BRAF + patients were younger compared to BRAF- patients (median age 51.9 vs 61.7, p = 0.08). There was no difference in the genders between the two groups (68% and 65% male). We found a statistically significant difference between the primary tumor sites between the two groups. BRAF + patients were more likely to have tumors located in the trunk compared to the BRAF- patients (34% vs 11%) while the BRAF- patients more commonly had primary tumors located in the head and neck regions (43% vs 19%, p = 0.02 between all groups).

Table 1

Demographic, clinical, pathological, and treatment characteristics of the *BRAF* + and *BRAF*- melanoma groups.
Variable	BRAF+ (n = 53)	BRAF- (n = 52)	P
Age (years) ≤ 50 > 50	23 (43%) 30 (57%)	10 (19%) 42 (81%)	0.01
Sex Male Female	36 (68%) 17 (32%)	34 (65%) 18 (35%)	0.89
Site of Primary Head and Neck Trunk Arm Leg Unknown (found only in LNs)	10 (19%) 18 (34%) 10 (19%) 11 (21%) 4 (8%)	23 (43%) 6 (11%) 9 (17%) 9 (17%) 5 (9%)	0.02
Site of LND Cervical Axillary Inguinal	7 (19%) 18 (50%) 11 (31%)	14 (44%) 11 (34%) 7 (22%)	0.09
Depth of Invasion at biopsy T1 (≤ 1 mm) T2 (> 1–2 mm) T3 (> 2–4 mm) T4 (> 4 mm) Unknown	3 (6%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 16 (32%) 22 (44%)	1 (2%) 2 (4%) 8 (16%) 13 (27%) 25 (51%)	0.58
Ulceration in biopsy No Yes Unknown	17 (32%) 19 (36%) 17 (32%)	11 (21%) 19 (37%) 22 (42%)	0.38
# of Mitosis in Biopsy (mm²) 0–2 3–5 >5 Unknown	10 (19%) 6 (11%) 20 (38%) 17 (32%)	4 (8%) 11 (21%) 11 (21%) 26 (50%)	0.04
# of LNs positive in LND 1 (N1) 2 or 3 (N2) 4+ (N3)	8 (35%) 14 (61%) 1 (4%)	8 (42%) 10 (53%) 1 (5%)	0.86
ECE found in LND Yes No	20 (56%) 16 (44%)	14 (44%) 18 (56%)	0.47

Pathological Characteristics:

We found that there were no significant differences between the two groups in regard to depth of invasion of the tumor on biopsy or presence of ulceration on the biopsy pathology reports. The percentage of patients with the number of tumor mitoses per mm² greater than 5 was higher in the BRAF + group (38% vs 21%, p = 0.036). All patients underwent a LND, and the number of positive lymph nodes was not found to be different between the two groups (median 2.0 for both groups). In addition, there were no significant differences in presence of ECE (p = 0.47) or size of the largest tumor deposit within the LND specimens (p = 0.12).

Treatment Characteristics:

The median time between the LND and start of RT was not significantly different between the two groups (median 4.27 for BRAF + vs 4.81 months for BRAF-, p = 0.1). The total dose of RT delivered was also not significantly different between the groups (median 30 Gy vs 36 Gy, p = 0.55). The use of adjuvant systemic therapy was also non-significant (60% vs 50%, p = 0.33). With regard to systemic therapy, 58 (55%) patients received adjuvant systemic therapy, with therapies including interferon (21), dendritic vaccine (4), ipilimumab (12), pembrolizumab (2), nivolumab (5), dabrafenib plus trametinib (2), and temozolomide (2) delivered after the course adjuvant RT. Patients then underwent follow-up exams and re-staging scans at intervals determined by the treatment team.

Survival Outcomes:

The median follow-up was 23.8 and 27.6 months in the BRAF + and BRAF- groups, respectively. The 5-year LRC rate was improved in the BRAF- patients compared to the BRAF + patients. The total number of local-regional failures was 18 and 7 in the BRAF + and BRAF- groups, respectively. The 5-year local-regional failure rate in the BRAF + was 40% (SD 7.9%) vs 19% (SD 6.6%) in the BRAF- patients (p = 0.02) (Fig. 1A). All of the local-regional failures occurred within the first three years after RT. There was no significant difference in DMFS between the two groups, with the 5-year DMFS of 38% (SD 7%) in the BRAF + group vs 34% (SD 8%) in the BRAF- group, p = 0.79 (Fig. 1B). DFS was also not significantly different between the two groups (Fig. 1C). The 5-year DFS was 23% vs 36% in the BRAF + and BRAF- patients respectively (p = 0.38). Finally, the 5-year OS in the BRAF + patients was 46% (SD 8%) compared to 59% (SD 7%) in the BRAF- patients (Fig. 1D, p = 0.63).

Univariate And Multivariate Analysis:

We performed univariate analysis of variables associated with LRC, DMFS, DFS, and OS (Table 2). The only two variables found to significantly correlate with worse local-regional control were BRAF + status (HR 2.7 95% CI 1.1.6.5 p = 0.03) and ≥ 4 LNs positive (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4–8.2 p = 0.01). There were no variables significantly correlated with DMFS, although number of positive LNs and use of adjuvant systemic therapy trended toward significance (p < 0.1). For DFS analysis, the two variables that were found to be statistically significant were ≥ 4 LNs (HR 1.9, p = 0.03) and the use of adjuvant systemic therapy (HR 0.61, p = 0.04). Lastly, only ≥ 4 LNs predicted for worse OS (HR 2.3, p = 0.02).

Table 2

Univariate Analysis of Clinical Outcomes
Variable	LRC	P			DFS		OS	P
BRAF status Negative Positive	-- 2.7 (1.1–6.5)	0.03	-- 0.96 (0.58–1.6)	0.89	-- 1.20 (0.75–1.9)	0.45	-- 1.11 (0.63-2.0)	0.72
Gender Male Female	-- 0.46 (0.17–1.2)	0.12	-- 0.93 (0.55–1.6)	0.89	-- 1.04 (0.63–1.7)	0.87	-- 0.95 (0.52–1.7)	0.87
Age ≤ 50 yrs < 50 yrs	-- 0.77 (0.33–1.8)	0.54	-- 1.12 (0.69-2.0)	0.55	-- 1.14 (0.69–1.9)	0.60	-- 1.46 (0.79–2.7)	0.22
Location of primary Other Trunk	-- 1.01 (0.35–2.9)	0.99	-- 0.80 (0.38–1.7)	0.57	-- 0.86 (0.43–1.8)	0.71	-- 0.57 (0.23–1.4)	0.23
Depth of invasion ≤2 mm <2 mm	-- 1.04 (0.43–2.5)	0.94	-- 1.11 (0.64–1.9)	0.70	-- 0.97 (0.58–1.6)	0.91	-- 0.82 (0.45–1.5)	0.51
Ulceration of primary No Yes	-- 1.04 (0.36–2.9)	0.95	-- 1.15 (0.61–2.1)	0.67	-- 0.96 (0.53–1.7)	0.89	-- 1.20 (0.60–2.4)	0.61
# of mitosis in primary ≤5 >5	-- 1.20 (0.41–3.4)	0.74	-- 1.1 (0.56-2.0)	0.83	-- 1.01 (0.58–1.9)	0.86	-- 1.13 (0.57–2.3)	0.72
# of LNs positive <4 ≥4	-- 3.34 (1.4–8.2)	0.01	-- 1.72 (0.92–3.2)	0.09	-- 1.88 (1.1–3.4)	0.03	-- 2.26 (1.19–4.3)	0.02
ECE No Yes	-- 0.91 (0.35–2.4)	0.85	-- 1.18 (0.62–2.2)	0.60	-- 0.95 (0.52–1.7)	0.87	-- 1.09 (0.56–2.1)	0.79
Size of LN deposit ≤ 30 mm > 30 mm	-- 0.41 (0.14–1.2)	0.11	-- 1.35 (0.75–2.4)	0.32	-- 1.23 (0.70–2.1)	0.47	-- 0.97 (0.51–1.9)	0.93
RT Dose ≤ 30 Gy > 30 Gy	-- 0.99 (0.46–2.2)	0.99	-- 0.99 (0.60–1.6)	0.98	-- 1.1 (0.68–1.8)	0.72	-- 0.85 (0.48–1.5)	0.57
Time from LND to RT ≤ 3 mos > 3 mos	-- 0.54 (0.7-4.0)	0.55	-- 1.08 (0.39-3.0)	0.88	-- 0.85 (0.30–2.4)	0.76	-- 1.14 (0.41–3.2)	0.81
Adjuvant systemic Tx No Yes	-- 0.74 (0.34–1.6)	0.46	-- 0.63 (0.38-1.0)	0.07	-- 0.61 (0.4–0.99)	0.04	-- 0.72 (0.41–1.3)	0.25

We next included BRAF status and the variables from the univariate analysis with p values < 0.1 into the multivariate analysis (Table 3). After including both BRAF status and number of LNs positive in the LRC multivariate analysis, both of these variables remained independently significant for worse LRC (BRAF + HR 4.5, p = 0.02, ≥ 4 LNs HR 2.8, p = 0.03). BRAF status, number of LNs positive, and use of adjuvant systemic therapy were included in the multivariate analysis for DMFS and DFS. None of these variables crossed the significance threshold for DMFS. However, both ≥ 4 positive LNs and use of adjuvant systemic therapy were significantly correlated with DFS (≥ 4 LNs HR, 1.87 p = 0.04, adjuvant systemic therapy HR 0.57, p = 0.04). Lastly, ≥ 4 positive LNs predicted for worse OS on the multivariate analysis after inclusion of BRAF status (HR 2.3, p = 0.01).

Table 3

Multivariate Analysis of Clinical Outcomes
Variable	LRC	P			DFS		OS	P
BRAF status Negative Positive	-- 4.49 (1.3–15.5)	0.02	-- 0.98 (0.55–1.7)	0.94	-- 1.23 (0.71–2.1)	0.46	-- 1.02 (0.55–1.9)	0.94
# of LNs positive <4 ≥4	-- 2.79 (1.1–6.9)	0.03	-- 1.80 (0.95–3.4)	0.07	-- 1.87 (1.0-3.4)	0.04	-- 2.26 (1.18–4.3)	0.01
Adjuvant systemic Tx No Yes			-- 0.62 (0.35–1.1)	0.09	-- 0.57 (0.3–0.96)	0.04

In this retrospective single institutional study, we found Stage III melanoma patients treated with LND and adjuvant RT whose tumor exhibited a BRAF mutation had significantly worse LRC compared to patients with BRAF negative (wild-type) tumors. We found no differences in the other clinical outcomes evaluated, including DMFS, DFS, and OS.

Adjuvant RT may be considered in patients who have clinically positive nodes and meet certain criteria for high-risk for local recurrence. The benefit of RT must be weighed against potential toxicities. These high-risk criteria are based on the phase III ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01 trial that randomized patients to adjuvant RT or observation after LND with the following: LDH < 1.5 times the upper limit of normal, as well as ≥ 1 parotid, ≥ 2 cervical or axillary, or ≥ 3 groin positive nodes, a maximum nodal diameter of ≥ 3 cm in the neck, ≥ 4 cm in the axilla or groin, or nodal extracapsular extension.¹² After a median follow-up of 73 months, this phase III trial showed improved regional lymph node control in the adjuvant RT arm compared to the observation group.³ Twenty one percent of patients had nodal relapses in the adjuvant RT group compared to 36% in the observation group (HR 0.52 [95% CI 0.31–0.88]; p = 0.023). However, there was no significant differences in relapse-free survival or OS between the two groups. Additionally, adjuvant RT was associated with long-term toxic effects such as pain and fibrosis of the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Further, there was a significant increase in lower limb volumes after adjuvant radiotherapy (difference of 7.3% [95% CI 1.5–13.1]; p = 0.014).¹²

Similar results to this phase III trial have also been found in multiple retrospective studies, demonstrating an improvement in local control with adjuvant RT, but not long-term survival.^13–16 One retrospective study that looked at 615 patients (509 who received adjuvant RT and 106 who did not), did show that receiving adjuvant RT was significantly associated with improved DFS on multivariate analysis.¹⁷ However, in a study comparing patients from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) who received adjuvant RT after LND versus those who did not, the authors did not find adjuvant RT to be significantly associated with OS on multivariate analysis.¹⁶ The lack of a clear survival benefit from adjuvant RT, compounded with its additional toxicities and costs, has limited its use in many centers. However, the use of adjuvant RT is still to consider radiotherapy in selected high-risk patients in the latest NCCN guidelines.¹⁸ The results of this study further identify a subgroup of high risk patients where perhaps adjuvant RT could be omitted.

Over the past couple decades, there has been a dramatic change in systemic therapies for melanoma. This change has been underscored by a better understanding of the disease’s genetic and immunologic underpinnings. One of the major advancements in our understanding is the role that the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signal transduction pathway plays in the pathogenesis of melanoma. The primary activating mutation implicated in this pathway is in the BRAF gene.^4,19 BRAF mutations are found in about 40–60% of melanomas, with about 80% occurring as a V600E mutation, 5–30% as V600K mutations, and the rest other rare mutations.^20–22 BRAF mutation has been associated as a poor prognostic factor in other cancer types, for example in papillary thyroid cancer.²³ BRAF mutation was associated with worse OS in the Medical Research Council Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan: Use and Sequencing (MRC FOCUS) rectal trial, with a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.40 (95% CI, 1.20 to 1.65; p < .0001).²⁴ In melanoma, a French institutional cohort of Stage III melanoma patients of which 40% had confirmed BRAF + mutational status showed BRAF mutant patients had significantly worse overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival. However, there was no data on the use of adjuvant RT available in this report.²⁵

There is emerging pre-clinical and clinical evidence that BRAF or upstream KRAS mutations in cancer cells results in heightened radiation resistance. Pre-clinical studies revealed that KRAS inhibition through silencing with siRNAs or pharmaceutical inhibition of farnesylation of KRAS led to radiosensitization of tumor cells.^26,27 In clinical studies, patients with Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or liver metastasis treated with ablative radiation (i.e stereotactic body radiation therapy, SBRT) whose tumors were KRAS mutant had worse local control compared to patients with KRAS wild-type tumors.^28,29 Furthermore, a pre-clinical study recently showed that BRAF V600E + thyroid cancer cell lines displayed higher resistance to radiation, and forced expression of a BRAF V600E mutation into wild-type BRAF thyroid cancer cells resulted in increased radiation resistance in vitro.¹¹ In this study, targeted inhibition of oncogenic BRAF with vemurafenib potently radiosensitized BRAF mutant thyroid cancer cells in vitro and in vivo.

Our study has some limitations such as the inherent biases in all retrospective studies. Although we found a difference in local and regional recurrences in the BRAFmut patients, this did not impact other clinical outcomes such as DFS or OS. Another limitation was due to the treatment era of most of the study patients, current immunotherapy and molecular targeted agents were not standardly used in all patients. The use of adjuvant RT in stage III melanoma is somewhat controversial in the immunotherapy era. The RFS in the EORTC 1325 and EORTC 18071 trials were significantly improved, but LRR was still 12–15%.^10,30 We argue that a more selective delivery of adjuvant RT should be considered in patients based on the results of this study.

In this study, we found an increased rate of local-regional recurrence after adjuvant RT in patients whose tumors are BRAF + compared to BRAF-. We speculate that this might relate to increased radiation resistance in tumors harboring a BRAF mutation, or perhaps a more aggressive biology of stage III disease driven by mutant BRAF. We also found the number of LNs positive was a factor significantly associated with worse LRC and OS on multivariate analysis, which is consistent with results of previous studies.^31–33 Given the small sample size of this study and other limitations, a larger study is needed to confirm the association of BRAF mutation with decreased local-regional control after RT. However, our findings suggest that caution should be exercised before recommending adjuvant RT to the nodal basin for patients at high risk of recurrence whose tumors are BRAF+.

- Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable

- Consent for publication: Not applicable

- Availability of data and material: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the published article.

- Competing interests: None

- Funding: This work was supported by the following grants: NIH R01CA246553 (T.W.), RSNA Resident Research Grant (A.W./T.W.). Research reported in this article was also supported by The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSU-CCC) and National Institute of Health (P30 CA016058).

- Authors' contributions: AW acquired, analyzed and interpreted the data and was primarily responsible for generating the tables and figures and writing the manuscript. PC acquired data and helped with writing of the introduction and discussion. MS helped with writing of the manuscript and helped editing. EM, SW, KK, and EW reviewed the manuscript and provided invaluable feedback for additional studies and editing of the final manuscript. TW designed this study and provided the resources for the completion of the study.

- Acknowledgements: None

- Authors' information (optional): None

Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, et al: Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67:472-492, 2017
Coit D.G., Thompson J.A., Albertini MR: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Cutaneous Melanoma. Version 1.2019 — November 1, 2018
Henderson MA, Burmeister BH, Ainslie J, et al: Adjuvant lymph-node field radiotherapy versus observation only in patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field relapse after lymphadenectomy (ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01): 6-year follow-up of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16:1049-1060, 2015
Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, et al: Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 417:949-54, 2002
Greaves WO, Verma S, Patel KP, et al: Frequency and spectrum of BRAF mutations in a retrospective, single-institution study of 1112 cases of melanoma. J Mol Diagn 15:220-6, 2013
Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al: Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386:444-51, 2015
Dummer R, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al: Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine 383:1139-1148, 2020
Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al: Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine 377:1824-1835, 2017
Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, et al: Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Placebo in Resected Stage III Melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine 378:1789-1801, 2018
Eggermont AMM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob J-J, et al: Prolonged Survival in Stage III Melanoma with Ipilimumab Adjuvant Therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 375:1845-1855, 2016
Robb R, Yang L, Shen C, et al: Inhibiting BRAF Oncogene-Mediated Radioresistance Effectively Radiosensitizes BRAF(V600E)-Mutant Thyroid Cancer Cells by Constraining DNA Double-Strand Break Repair. Clin Cancer Res 25:4749-4760, 2019
Burmeister BH, Henderson MA, Ainslie J, et al: Adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation alone for patients at risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for melanoma: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 13:589-97, 2012
Strojan P, Jancar B, Cemazar M, et al: Melanoma metastases to the neck nodes: role of adjuvant irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:1039-45, 2010
Bibault JE, Dewas S, Mirabel X, et al: Adjuvant radiation therapy in metastatic lymph nodes from melanoma. Radiat Oncol 6:12, 2011
Pinkham MB, Foote MC, Burmeister E, et al: Stage III melanoma in the axilla: patterns of regional recurrence after surgery with and without adjuvant radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86:702-8, 2013
Danish HH, Patel KR, Switchenko JM, et al: The influence of postoperative lymph node radiation therapy on overall survival of patients with stage III melanoma, a National Cancer Database analysis. Melanoma Res 26:595-603, 2016
Agrawal S, Kane JM, 3rd, Guadagnolo BA, et al: The benefits of adjuvant radiation therapy after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for clinically advanced, high-risk, lymph node-metastatic melanoma. Cancer 115:5836-44, 2009
Coit DG, Thompson JA, Albertini MR, et al: Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17:367-402, 2019
Dhillon AS, Hagan S, Rath O, et al: MAP kinase signalling pathways in cancer. Oncogene 26:3279-90, 2007
Long GV, Menzies AM, Nagrial AM, et al: Prognostic and clinicopathologic associations of oncogenic BRAF in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 29:1239-46, 2011
Menzies AM, Haydu LE, Visintin L, et al: Distinguishing clinicopathologic features of patients with V600E and V600K BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 18:3242-9, 2012
McArthur GA, Chapman PB, Robert C, et al: Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study. Lancet Oncol 15:323-32, 2014
Liu C, Chen T, Liu Z: Associations between BRAFV600E and prognostic factors and poor outcomes in papillary thyroid carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 14:241, 2016
Richman SD, Seymour MT, Chambers P, et al: KRAS and BRAF Mutations in Advanced Colorectal Cancer Are Associated With Poor Prognosis but Do Not Preclude Benefit From Oxaliplatin or Irinotecan: Results From the MRC FOCUS Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 27:5931-5937, 2009
Moreau S, Saiag P, Aegerter P, et al: Prognostic value of BRAF(V⁶⁰⁰) mutations in melanoma patients after resection of metastatic lymph nodes. Ann Surg Oncol 19:4314-21, 2012
Bernhard EJ, McKenna WG, Hamilton AD, et al: Inhibiting Ras Prenylation Increases the Radiosensitivity of Human Tumor Cell Lines with Activating Mutations of <em>ras</em> Oncogenes. Cancer Research 58:1754-1761, 1998
Brunner TB, Cengel KA, Hahn SM, et al: Pancreatic Cancer Cell Radiation Survival and Prenyltransferase Inhibition: The Role of K-Ras. Cancer Research 65:8433-8441, 2005
Mak RH, Hermann G, Lewis JH, et al: Outcomes by tumor histology and KRAS mutation status after lung stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical lung cancer 16:24-32, 2015
Hong TS, Wo JY, Borger DR, et al: Phase II Study of Proton-Based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Metastases: Importance of Tumor Genotype. J Natl Cancer Inst 109, 2017
Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, et al: Longer Follow-Up Confirms Recurrence-Free Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in High-Risk Stage III Melanoma: Updated Results From the EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 38:3925-3936, 2020
Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, et al: Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol 19:3622-34, 2001
White RR, Stanley WE, Johnson JL, et al: Long-term survival in 2,505 patients with melanoma with regional lymph node metastasis. Ann Surg 235:879-87, 2002
Khosrotehrani K, van der Ploeg AP, Siskind V, et al: Nomograms to predict recurrence and survival in stage IIIB and IIIC melanoma after therapeutic lymphadenectomy. Eur J Cancer 50:1301-9, 2014

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
08 Jun, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed at journal
02 May, 2021
Review #3 received at journal
02 May, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
02 May, 2021
Reviews received at journal
29 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
29 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
11 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
11 Apr, 2021
Review #1 received at journal
11 Apr, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
06 Apr, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
06 Apr, 2021
Editor invited by journal
06 Apr, 2021
First submitted to journal
26 Mar, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

BRAF Mutation Correlates with Worse Local-regional Control Following Radiation Therapy in Patients with Stage III Melanoma

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Patient and clinical characteristics:

Pathological Characteristics:

Treatment Characteristics:

Survival Outcomes:

Univariate And Multivariate Analysis:

Discussion:

Conclusions:

Declarations:

References:

Status:

Version 1