Haematological malignancies induce important alterations of the immune system, which account for the high frequency of autoimmune complications observed in patients. Cutaneous immune-mediated diseases associated with haematological malignancies encompass a heterogeneous group of dermatoses, including, among others, neutrophilic and eosinophilic dermatoses, autoantibody-mediated skin diseases, vasculitis and granulomatous dermatoses. Some of these diseases, such as paraneoplastic pemphigus, are associated with an increased risk of death; others, such as eosinophilic dermatoses of haematological malignancies, run a benign clinical course but portend a significant negative impairment on a patient's quality of life. In rare cases, the skin eruption reflects immunological alterations associated with an unfavourable prognosis of the associated haematological disorder. Therapeutic management of immune-mediated skin diseases in patients with haematological malignancies is often challenging. Systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs are considered frontline therapies but may considerably augment the risk of serious infections. Indeed, developing a specific targeted therapeutic approach is of crucial importance for this particularly fragile patient population. This review provides an up-to-date overview on the immune-mediated skin diseases most frequently encountered by patients with onco-haematological disorders, discussing new pathogenic advances and therapeutic options on the horizon.
BackgroundClinical response to MAPK inhibitors in metastatic melanoma patients is heterogeneous for reasons still needing to be elucidated. As the patient immune activity contributes to treatment clinical benefit, the pre-existing level of immunity at tumor site may provide biomarkers of disease outcome to therapy. Here we investigated whether assessing the density and spatial tissue distribution of key immune cells in the tumor microenvironment could identify patients predisposed to respond to MAPK inhibitors.MethodsPretreatment tumor biopsies from a total of 213 patients (158 for the training set and 55 for the validation set) treated with BRAF or BRAF/MEK inhibitors within the Italian Melanoma Intergroup were stained with selected immune markers (CD8, CD163, β-catenin, PD-L1, PD-L2). Results, obtained by blinded immunohistochemical scoring and digital image analysis, were correlated with clinical response and outcome by multivariate logistic models on response to treatment and clinical outcome, adjusted for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase and treatment received.ResultsPatients with high intratumoral, but not peritumoral, CD8+ T cells and concomitantly low CD163+ myeloid cells displayed higher probability of response (OR 9.91, 95% CI 2.23–44.0, p = 0.003) and longer overall survival (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16–0.72, p = 0.005) compared to those with intratumoral low CD8+ T cells and high CD163+ myeloid cells. The latter phenotype was instead associated with a shorter progression free survival (p = 0.010). In contrast, PD-L1 and PD-L2 did not correlate with clinical outcome while tumor β-catenin overexpression showed association with lower probability of response (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21–1.06, p = 0.068).ConclusionsAnalysis of the spatially constrained distribution of CD8+ and CD163+ cells, representative of the opposite circuits of antitumor vs protumor immunity, respectively, may assist in identifying melanoma patients with improved response and better outcome upon treatment with MAPK inhibitors. These data underline the role of endogenous immune microenvironment in predisposing metastatic melanoma patients to benefit from therapies targeting driver-oncogenic pathways.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.