Abstract

Simple SummarySurvival after diagnosis of metastatic uveal melanoma has not significantly improved over decades, most patients die within a year from diagnosis. Uveal melanoma is clearly distinct from cutaneous melanoma and the therapies developed for the latter do not work for the former. This is apparently due to three major aspects of UM: (i) the mutations that drive UM tumorigenesis activate two oncogenic signaling pathways and one of the two cannot yet be targeted by therapy; (ii) UM has relatively few tumor specific neo-antigens that could be presented to the immune system and therefore evades immune control; and (iii) UM shows an infiltrate of inflammatory cells that promote tumor progression. However, in the future, there might be drugs to target both oncogenic pathways that are activated in UM, new immune therapy approaches might circumvent the paucity of neo-antigens and liver directed, local therapy might improve response to cytostatic therapy. Hopefully, there will be therapies that can repeat the success obtained with targeted and immune therapy for cutaneous melanoma.Uveal melanoma (UM) is characterized by relatively few, highly incident molecular alterations and their association with metastatic risk is deeply understood. Nevertheless, this knowledge has so far not led to innovative therapies for the successful treatment of UM metastases or for adjuvant therapy, leaving survival after diagnosis of metastatic UM almost unaltered in decades. The driver mutations of UM, mainly in the G-protein genes GNAQ and GNA11, activate the MAP-kinase pathway as well as the YAP/TAZ pathway. At present, there are no drugs that target the latter and this likely explains the failure of mitogen activated kinase kinase inhibitors. Immune checkpoint blockers, despite the game changing effect in cutaneous melanoma (CM), show only limited effects in UM probably because of the low mutational burden of 0.5 per megabase and the unavailability of antibodies targeting the main immune checkpoint active in UM. The highly pro-tumorigenic microenvironment of UM also contributes to therapy resistance. However, T-cell redirection by a soluble T-cell receptor that is fused to an anti-CD3 single-chain variable fragment, local, liver specific therapy, new immune checkpoint blockers, and YAP/TAZ specific drugs give new hope to repeating the success of innovative therapy obtained for CM.

Highlights

  • Uveal melanoma accounts for approximately 5% of all human melanomas

  • Uveal melanoma (UM) and cutaneous melanoma (CM) share the risk factors linked to skin color yet the etiological function of UV-radiation, well established for CM [11], is unlikely to contribute to the development of UM [7]

  • This analysis shows that all features occur in concomitance in at least one of 48 primary tumors that have developed metastases so that no absolute exclusivity can be claimed for none of these molecular lesions (Figure 1)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Uveal melanoma accounts for approximately 5% of all human melanomas It is the most frequent non-cutaneous site of melanoma development (for recent reviews see [1,2]). Risk factors are light skin and eye color [5] and professional activity as a welder [6,7]. UM and CM share the risk factors linked to skin color yet the etiological function of UV-radiation, well established for CM [11], is unlikely to contribute to the development of UM [7]. UM shows a very limited number of molecular lesions that drive progression to metastasis (see below) These alterations define molecular classes that are associated with metastatic risk and their analysis allows for a precise prognostication [16]. New therapies targeting immune checkpoints that are more relevant for UM, such as LAG3, may be more promising [27,28]

Metastasis Associated Molecular Characteristics of UM
Therapy of UM Metastases
Objective
UM Metastasis Models
Findings
Outlook
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call