Ocular melanoma consists of posterior uveal melanoma, iris melanoma and conjunctival melanoma. These malignancies derive from melanocytes in the uveal tract or conjunctiva. The genetic profiles of these different entities differ from each other. In uveal melanoma, GNAQ and GNA11 gene mutations are frequently found and prognosis is based on mutation status of BAP1, SF3B1 and EIF1AX genes. Iris melanoma, also originating from the uvea, has similarities to the genetic makeups of both posterior uveal melanoma (UM) and conjunctival melanoma since mutations in GNAQ and GNA11 are less common and genes involved in conjunctival melanoma such as BRAF have been described. The genetic spectrum of conjunctival melanoma, however, includes frequent mutations in the BRAF, NRAS and TERT promoter genes, which are found in cutaneous melanoma as well. The BRAF status of the tumor is not correlated to prognosis, whereas the TERT promoter gene mutations are. Clinical presentation, histopathological characteristics and copy number alterations are associated with survival in ocular melanoma. Tissue material is needed to classify ocular melanoma in the different subgroups, which creates a need for the use of noninvasive techniques to prognosticate patients who underwent eye preserving treatment.
Uveal melanoma (UM) is the second most frequent type of melanoma. Therapeutic options for UM favor minimally invasive techniques such as irradiation for vision preservation. As a consequence, no tumor material is obtained. Without available tissue, molecular analyses for gene expression, mutation or copy number analysis cannot be performed. Thus, proper patient stratification is impossible and patients’ uncertainty about their prognosis rises. Minimally invasive techniques have been studied for prognostication in UM. Blood-based biomarker analysis has become more common in recent years; however, no clinically standardized protocol exists. This review summarizes insights in biomarker analysis, addressing new insights in circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor DNA, extracellular vesicles, proteomics, and metabolomics. Additionally, medical imaging can play a significant role in staging, surveillance, and prognostication of UM and is addressed in this review. We propose that combining multiple minimally invasive modalities using tumor biomarkers should be the way forward and warrant more attention in the coming years.
Aims: Uveal melanoma has a high propensity to metastasize. Prognosis is associated with specific driver mutations and copy number variations, and these can only be obtained after genetic testing. In this study we evaluated the efficacy of patient outcome prediction using deep learning on haematoxylin and eosin (HE)‐stained primary uveal melanoma slides in comparison to molecular testing.Methods: In this retrospective study of patients with uveal melanoma, 113 patients from the Erasmus Medical Centre who underwent enucleation had tumour tissue analysed for molecular classification between 1993 and 2020. Routine HE‐stained slides were scanned to obtain whole‐slide images (WSI). After annotation of regions of interest, tiles of 1024 × 1024 pixels were extracted at a magnification of 40×. An ablation study to select the best‐performing deep‐learning model was carried out using three state‐of‐the‐art deep‐learning models (EfficientNet, Vision Transformer, and Swin Transformer).Results: Deep‐learning models were subjected to a training cohort (n = 40), followed by a validation cohort (n = 20), and finally underwent a test cohort (n = 48). A k‐fold cross‐validation (k = 3) of validation and test cohorts (n = 113 of three classes: BAP1, SF3B1, EIF1AX) demonstrated Swin Transformer as the best‐performing deep‐learning model to predict molecular subclasses based on HE stains. The model achieved an accuracy of 0.83 ± 0.09 on the validation cohort and 0.75 ± 0.04 on the test cohort. Within the subclasses, this model correctly predicted 70% BAP1‐mutated, 61% SF3B1‐mutated and 80% EIF1AX‐mutated UM in the test set.Conclusions: This study showcases the potential of the deep‐learning methodology for predicting molecular subclasses in a multiclass manner using HE‐stained WSI. This development holds promise for advanced prognostication of UM patients without the need of molecular or immunohistochemical testing. Additionally, this study suggests there are distinct histopathological features per subclass; mainly utilizing epithelioid cellular morphology for BAP1‐classification, but an unknown feature distinguishes EIF1AX and SF3B1.
Uveal melanomas (UM) are detected earlier. Consequently, tumors are smaller, allowing for novel eye-preserving treatments. This reduces tumor tissue available for genomic profiling. Additionally, these small tumors can be hard to differentiate from nevi, creating the need for minimally invasive detection and prognostication. Metabolites show promise as minimally invasive detection by resembling the biological phenotype. In this pilot study, we determined metabolite patterns in the peripheral blood of UM patients (n = 113) and controls (n = 46) using untargeted metabolomics. Using a random forest classifier (RFC) and leave-one-out cross-validation, we confirmed discriminatory metabolite patterns in UM patients compared to controls with an area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic of 0.99 in both positive and negative ion modes. The RFC and leave-one-out cross-validation did not reveal discriminatory metabolite patterns in high-risk versus low-risk of metastasizing in UM patients. Ten-time repeated analyses of the RFC and LOOCV using 50% randomly distributed samples showed similar results for UM patients versus controls and prognostic groups. Pathway analysis using annotated metabolites indicated dysregulation of several processes associated with malignancies. Consequently, minimally invasive metabolomics could potentially allow for screening as it distinguishes metabolite patterns that are putatively associated with oncogenic processes in the peripheral blood plasma of UM patients from controls at the time of diagnosis.