Submitted:
09 November 2023
Posted:
10 November 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Patients and study design
Statistical analyses
3. Results
Patients
LDH levels a potential diagnostic tool for patients with skin melanoma in a high burden disease scenario
Treatment and survival


Adverse events
Subgroup analyses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- LI H. Global Health Estimates 2016: Deaths by cause, age, sex, by country and by region, 2000–2016. Geneva, World Health Organization; 2018.
- Michielin O, Van Akkooi AC, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Keilholz U. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Onc. 2019; 30:1884-901. [CrossRef]
- Seidler AM, Pennie ML, Veledar E, Culler SD, Chen SC. Economic burden of melanoma in the elderly population: population-based analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data. Archives of Dermatology. 2010 Mar 1;146(3):249-56.
- Weinstein D, Leininger J, Hamby C, Safai B. Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in melanoma. The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology. 2014 Jun;7(6):13.
- Agarwala SS, Keilholz U, Gilles E, Bedikian AY, Wu J, Kay R, Stein CA, Itri LM, Suciu S, Eggermont AM. LDH correlation with survival in advanced melanoma from two large, randomised trials (Oblimersen GM301 and EORTC 18951). European Journal of Cancer. 2009 Jul 1;45(10):1807-14. [CrossRef]
- Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E, Bougioukas G, Didilis V, Gatter KC, Harris AL. Lactate dehydrogenase-5 (LDH-5) overexpression in non-small-cell lung cancer tissues is linked to tumour hypoxia, angiogenic factor production and poor prognosis. British journal of cancer. 2003 Sep;89(5):877-85. [CrossRef]
- Finck SJ, Giuliano AE, Morton DL. LDH and melanoma. Cancer. 1983 Mar 1;51(5):840-3.
- Deichmann M, Benner A, Bock M, Jäckel A, Uhl K, Waldmann V, Näher H. S100-Beta, melanoma-inhibiting activity, and lactate dehydrogenase discriminate progressive from nonprogressive American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IV melanoma. Journal of clinical oncology. 1999 Jun;17(6):1891-. [CrossRef]
- Fischer GM, Carapeto FC, Joon AY, Haydu LE, Chen H, Wang F, Van Arnam JS, McQuade JL, Wani K, Kirkwood JM, Thompson JF. Molecular and immunological associations of elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase in metastatic melanoma patients: A fresh look at an old biomarker. Cancer medicine. 2020 Nov;9(22):8650-61. [CrossRef]
- Deichmann M, Benner A, Bock M, Jäckel A, Uhl K, Waldmann V, Näher H. S100-Beta, melanoma-inhibiting activity, and lactate dehydrogenase discriminate progressive from nonprogressive American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IV melanoma. Journal of clinical oncology. 1999 Jun;17(6):1891-. [CrossRef]
- Weide B, Elsässer M, Büttner P, Pflugfelder A, Leiter U, Eigentler TK, Bauer J, Witte M, Meier F, Garbe C. Serum markers lactate dehydrogenase and S100B predict independently disease outcome in melanoma patients with distant metastasis. British journal of cancer. 2012 Jul;107(3):422-8. [CrossRef]
- Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Rutkowski P, Grob JJ, Cowey CL, Lao CD, Wagstaff J, Schadendorf D, Ferrucci PF, Smylie M, Dummer R, Hill A, Hogg D, Haanen J, Carlino MS, Bechter O, Maio M, Marquez-Rodas I, Guidoboni M, McArthur G, Lebbé C, Ascierto PA, Long GV, Cebon J, Sosman J, Postow MA, Callahan MK, Walker D, Rollin L, Bhore R, Hodi FS, Larkin J. Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:1345-1356. [CrossRef]
- Long GV, Atkinson V, Ascierto PA, Robert C, Hassel JC, Rutkowski P, Savage KJ, Taylor F, Coon C, Gilloteau I, Dastani HB. Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma: results from the phase III CheckMate 066 study. Annals of Onc. 2016; 27:1940-6. [CrossRef]
- Wilson MA, Schuchter LM. Chemotherapy for melanoma. Melanoma. 2016:209-29.
- Wheatley K, Ives N, Hancock B, Gore M, Eggermont A, Suciu S. Does adjuvant interferon-α for high-risk melanoma provide a worthwhile benefit? A meta-analysis of the randomised trials. Cancer treatment rev. 2003; 29:241-52. [CrossRef]
- Deckers EA, Kruijff S, Brouwers AH, Van Der Steen K, Hoekstra HJ, Thompson JF, García DV, Wevers KP. The association between active tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis and levels of S-100B and LDH in stage IV melanoma patients. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2020 Nov 1;46(11):2147-53. [CrossRef]
- Desai AD, Chinta S, Yeh C, Shah VP, Shah R, Paskhover B, Schwartz RA. An analysis of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in advanced stage IV melanoma of the skin: Prognostic capabilities and demographic variability. Archives of Dermatological Research. 2023 May;315(4):799-806. [CrossRef]
- Mokwatsi GG, Schutte AE, Kruger R. A biomarker of tissue damage, lactate dehydrogenase, is associated with fibulin-1 and oxidative stress in blacks: the SAfrEIC study. Biomarkers. 2016 Jan 2;21(1):48-55.
- Hsieh K, Blumenthal HT. Serum lactic dehydrogenase levels in various disease states. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 1956 Apr;91(4):626-30.
- Wu Y, Lu C, Pan N, Zhang M, An Y, Xu M, Zhang L, Guo Y, Tan L. Serum lactate dehydrogenase activities as systems biomarkers for 48 types of human diseases. Scientific Reports. 2021 Jun 21;11(1):12997. [CrossRef]
- AL-Janabi AA, Ali ZQ, Noree ZM. Lactate dehydrogenase as an indicator of liver, muscular and cancer diseases. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine. 2015;3(7):543-6.
- Al-Saadoon EA, Al-Naama LM, Hassan JK. Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity in children with malignant diseases. Bahrain Medical Bulletin. 2003 Jun;25(2):1-7.
- Hodi FS, Chiarion-Sileni V, Lewis KD, Grob JJ, Rutkowski P, Lao CD, Cowey CL, Schadendorf D, Wagstaff J, Dummer R, Queirolo P. Long-term survival in advanced melanoma for patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CheckMate 067. [CrossRef]
- Hodi FS, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Grob JJ, Rutkowski P, Cowey CL, Lao CD, Schadendorf D, Wagstaff J, Dummer R, Ferrucci PF. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Onc. 2018; 19:1480-92. [CrossRef]
- Flaherty KT, Robert C, Hersey P, Nathan P, Garbe C, Milhem M, Demidov LV, Hassel JC, Rutkowski P, Mohr P, Dummer R. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. NEJM. 2012; 367:107-14.
- Eigentler TK, Caroli UM, Radny P, Garbe C. Palliative therapy of disseminated malignant melanoma: a systematic review of 41 randomised clinical trials. The lancet onc. 2003; 4:748-59. [CrossRef]
- Tsao H, Atkins MB, Sober AJ. Management of cutaneous melanoma. NEJM. 2004; 351: 998-1012.
- Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, Thompson JF, Atkins MB, Byrd DR, Buzaid AC, Cochran AJ, Coit DG, Ding S, Eggermont AM. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. Journal of clinical onc. 2009 Dec; 27: 6199. [CrossRef]
- Zimmer L, Livingstone E, Hassel JC, Fluck M, Eigentler T, Loquai C, Haferkamp S, Gutzmer R, Meier F, Mohr P, Hauschild A. Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. The Lancet. 2020; 395: 1558-68. [CrossRef]
- Weber JS, Schadendorf D, Del Vecchio M, Larkin J, Atkinson V, Schenker M, Pigozzo J, Gogas H, Dalle S, Meyer N, Ascierto PA. Adjuvant therapy of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 915). Journal of Clinical Onc. 2023; 41: 517. [CrossRef]
- Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Grob JJ, Cowey CL, Lao CD, Schadendorf D, Dummer R, Smylie M, Rutkowski P, Ferrucci PF. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. NEJM. 2015; 373: 23-34. [CrossRef]


| Variable | Number of patients (n =53) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| median (range) | 54.1 (23-77) | |
| Sex | ||
| F | 26 (49.1%) | |
| M | 27 (50.9%) | |
| ECOG PS | ||
| 0 | 12 (22.6%) | |
| 1 | 33 (62.3%) | |
| 2 | 8 (15.1%) | |
| Sites of Metastatic Disease (at start of treatment sequence) | ||
| BONE | 10 (18.9%) | |
| CNS | 9 (17.0%) | |
| HEPATIC | 18 (34.0%) | |
| LGGL | 30 (56.6%) | |
| LUNG | 27 (50.9%) | |
| OTHER SOFT TISSUES OR ORGANS | 19 (35.8%) | |
| LDH level | ||
| High (>246 U/L) | 16 (30.2%) | |
| Normal (120-246 U/L) | 30 (56.6%) | |
| NA | 7 (13.2%) | |
| BRAF mutation status | ||
| MUTATED | 23 (43.4%) | |
| WILD TYPE | 25 (47.2%) | |
| UNKNOWN | 5 (9.4%) | |
| Sites of progression | ||
| BONE | 3 (5.7%) | |
| CNS | 4 (7.5%) | |
| HEPATIC | 4 (7.5%) | |
| LGGL | 3 (5.7%) | |
| LOCAL | 1 (1.9%) | |
| LUNG | 5 (9.4%) | |
| NUL | 41 (77.4%) | |
| OTHER SOFT TISSUES OR ORGANS | 4 (7.5%) |
| Adverse Event | Number of patients (n, %) |
|---|---|
| Any | 24 (45.3%) |
| DERMATITIS | 2 (3.8%) |
| GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER | 9 (17.0%) |
| HAEMATOLOGICAL DISORDER | 1 (1.9%) |
| HEPATIC DISORDER | 10 (18.9%) |
| PNEUMONITIS | 1 (1.9%) |
| Thyroid | 7 (13.2%) |
| Grade 1 | |
| HEPATIC DISORDER | 3 (5.7%) |
| Thyroid | 3 (5.7%) |
| Grade 2 | |
| DERMATITIS | 2 (3.8%) |
| GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER | 2 (3.8%) |
| HAEMATOLOGICAL DISORDER | 1 (1.9%) |
| HEPATIC DISORDER | 1 (1.9%) |
| PNEUMONITIS | 1 (1.9%) |
| Thyroid | 4 (7.5%) |
| Grade 3 | |
| GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER | 4 (7.5%) |
| HEPATIC DISORDER | 1 (1.9%) |
| Grade 4 | |
| GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER | 3 (5.7%) |
| HEPATIC DISORDER | 5 (9.4%) |
| Grade 5 | |
| GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER | 1 (1.9%) |
| Variable | Kaplan-Meier survival analysis | Univariate Cox regression analysis | Multivariate Cox regression analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median survival time (days) (95% CI) | p-value (Log-rank test) |
HR (95% CI) | p-value | HR (95% CI) | p-value | ||
| Sex (Female vs. Male) | 346(130-1347) 302(113-NA) |
0.852 | 1.11(0.51-2.41) | 0.791 | 1.74(0.67-4.49) | 0.254 | |
| ECOG (0 vs. >0) | NA (346-NA) 212(120-460) |
0.008 | 0.22(0.05-0.92) | 0.038 | 0.16(0.03-0.84) | 0.031 | |
| LDH (>246 vs. <246 U/L) | 212(94-346) 1011(168-NA) |
0.050 | 2.20(0.93-5.20) | 0.073 | 2.90(1.11-7.55) | 0.030 | |
| Previous therapies (none vs. yes) | 212(102-493) 460(191-NA) |
0.176 | 1.90(0.79-4.56) | 0.151 | 2.07(0.23-18.81) | 0.517 | |
| BRAF (none vs. present) | 271(113-1011) 303(144-1347) |
0.669 | 1.46(0.58-3.64) | 0.419 | 1.65(0.15-18.41) | 0.686 | |
| Completion of Ipilimumab (no vs. yes) | 200(73-NA) 303(191-1347) |
0.338 | 1.52(0.70-3.31) | 0.292 | 1.25(0.50-3.14) | 0.631 | |
| Variable | Kaplan-Meier survival analysis | Univariate Cox regression analysis | Multivariate Cox regression analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median survival time (days) (95% CI) | p-value (Log-rank test) |
HR (95% CI) | p-value | HR (95% CI) | p-value | |||
| Sex (Female vs. Male) | 182(99-981) 253(83-NA) |
0.893 | 0.95(0.46-1.96) | 0.893 | 0.98(0.94-1.02) | 0.322 | ||
| ECOG (0 vs. >0) | NA (83-NA) 144(93-253) |
0.019 | 0.21(0.05-0.89) | 0.034 | 1.26(0.53-3.03) | 0.601 | ||
| LDH (>246 vs. <246 U/L) | 93(63-430) 253(119-NA) |
0.083 | 2.02(0.90-4.52) | 0.089 | 0.10(0.02-0.58) | 0.010 | ||
| Previous therapies (none vs. yes) | 144(72-330) 272(113-NA) |
0.203 | 1.66(0.75-3.64) | 0.209 | 3.35(1.31-8.55) | 0.012 | ||
| BRAF (none vs. present) | 182(83-981) 272(99-NA) |
0.601 | 1.24(0.55-2.79) | 0.602 | 2.10(0.23-18.90) | 0.509 | ||
| Completion of Ipilimumab (no vs. yes) | 63(43-430) 253(144-981) |
0.043 | 2.09(1.01-4.33) | 0.048 | 0.92(0.09-9.77) | 0.945 | ||
|
CheckMate 067 |
Baseline characteristics from this study |
|---|---|
|
Mean age - 60y |
Mean age - 54.1y |
| Female - 35.4% | Female - 49.1% |
| ECOG 0 - 73.2% | ECOG 0 - 22.6% |
| ECOG 1 - 26.6% | ECOG 1 – 62.3% |
| ECOG 2 – 0.1% | ECOG 2 – 15.1% |
| LDH levels ≤ ULN - 62.3% | LDH levels ≤ ULN – 56.6% |
| No brain metastases – 96.4% | No brain metastases – 83% |
| Wild type BRAF – 68.5% | Wild type BRAF – 47.2% |
| Disease stage included - III and IV | Disease stage included - IV |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).