An independent validation of a gene expression signature to differentiate malignant melanoma from benign melanocytic nevi

Melanoma Diagnosis in the Mihm Era-And Beyond

During the illustrious career of Martin C. Mihm Jr., MD, the diagnosis of melanoma underwent significant changes, to which he made many contributions. In early descriptions, melanomas were fungating tumor masses that were obviously malignant, and highly lethal. In seminal work by Dr. Mihm and his mentor, Wallace H. Clark, Jr., MD, the early phases of development of these neoplasms were recognized and distinguished from the more advanced disease. It was generally believed that the early stage of melanoma, termed radial growth phase (RGP) and characterized by absence of vertical growth phase (VGP) and by favorable microstaging attributes could be recognized, excised, and cured, thus preventing the development of advanced disease. However, strenuous efforts in this direction over several decades have resulted in little or no change in mortality, leading to the recognition that many of these neoplasms, at least, may not be true biological malignancies, and to the conclusion that overdiagnosis commonly occurs in this disease, which is defined as representing diagnosis as melanoma of a neoplasm that would not have had the capacity to cause death or symptoms in the lifetime of the host. Although there may be other subsets of neoplasms in this category, an important category of overdiagnosis in melanomas is concentrated in T1a melanomas that lack VGP. If these neoplasms can be recognized with sensitive and specific criteria, which may already be available, changes in terminology may be appropriate, recognizing that some of them may have low malignant potential, whereas others may have no capacity at all for metastasis and may not warrant the use of the term "melanoma."

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Melanoma

The incidence of melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer, continues to rise globally, particularly among fair-skinned populations (type I and II). Early detection is crucial for improving patient outcomes, and recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown promise in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of melanoma diagnosis and management. This review examines the role of AI in skin lesion diagnostics, highlighting two main approaches: machine learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and expert systems. AI techniques have demonstrated high accuracy in classifying dermoscopic images, often matching or surpassing dermatologists' performance. Integrating AI into dermatology has improved tasks, such as lesion classification, segmentation, and risk prediction, facilitating earlier and more accurate interventions. Despite these advancements, challenges remain, including biases in training data, interpretability issues, and integration of AI into clinical workflows. Ensuring diverse data representation and maintaining high standards of image quality are essential for reliable AI performance. Future directions involve the development of more sophisticated models, such as vision-language and multimodal models, and federated learning to address data privacy and generalizability concerns. Continuous validation and ethical integration of AI into clinical practice are vital for realizing its full potential for improving melanoma diagnosis and patient care.

Appropriate Statistical Methods to Assess Cross-study Diagnostic 23-Gene Expression Profile Test Performance for Cutaneous Melanocytic Neoplasms

ABSTRACT

Comparing studies of molecular ancillary diagnostic tests for difficult-to-diagnose cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms presents a methodological challenge, given the disparate ways accuracy metrics are calculated. A recent report by Boothby-Shoemaker et al investigating the real-world accuracy of the 23-gene expression profile (23-GEP) test highlights this methodological difficulty, reporting lower accuracy than previously observed. However, their calculation method-with indeterminate test results defined as either false positive or false negative-was different than those used in previous studies. We corrected for these differences and recalculated their reported accuracy metrics in the same manner as the previous studies to enable appropriate comparison with previously published reports. This corrected analysis showed a sensitivity of 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.1%-100%) and specificity of 94.4% (91.6%-96.9%). We then compared these results directly to previous studies with >25 benign and >25 malignant cases with outcomes and/or concordant histopathological diagnosis by ≥3 dermatopathologists. All studies assessed had enrollment imbalances of benign versus malignant patients (0.8-7.0 ratio), so balanced cohorts were resampled according to the lowest common denominator to calculate point estimates and CIs for accuracy metrics. Overall, we found no statistically significant differences in the ranges of 23-GEP sensitivity, 90.4%-96.3% (95% CI, 80.8%-100%), specificity, 87.3%-96.2% (78.2%-100%), positive predictive value, 88.5%-96.1% (81.5%-100%), or negative predictive value, 91.1%-96.3% (83.6%-100%) between previous studies and the cohort from Boothby-Shoemaker et al with this unified methodological approach. Rigorous standardization of calculation methods is necessary when the goal is direct cross-study comparability.

Comparison of S100A8 and PRAME as biomarkers for distinguishing melanoma from melanocytic naevus: a case-control analysis

BACKGROUND

S100A8 is a melanoma biomarker expressed in the melanoma-associated epidermal keratinocytes, but its diagnostic utility has not been compared with other biomarkers, including PRAME.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the utility of S100A8 and PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the differential diagnosis of melanoma and naevi in a case-control study.

METHODS

A previously described cohort of 209 melanomas (case samples) and naevi (control samples) dual-immunostained for S100A8 and PRAME were included. For S100A8, previously reported scores indicating the proportion of tumour-associated epidermis stained (0 = indeterminate; 1 = 0-4%; 2 = 5-25%; 3 = 26-50%; 4 = 51-75%; 5 = > 75%) were utilized. PRAME IHC was reviewed by at least two reviewers and a consensus score assigned, with score indicating the proportion of tumour stained (0 = indeterminate; 1 = 0%; 2 = 1-50%; 3 = > 50%). A positive test was defined as > 50% staining.

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for S100A8 (0.833) and PRAME (0.874) were not significantly different from each other (P = 0.22). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 42.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 32.6-52.8%] and 98.2% (95% CI 93.6-99.8%) for S100A8, and 79.8% (95% CI 70.5-87.2%) and 87.3% (95% CI 79.6-92.9%) for PRAME, respectively. A combined test requiring both S100A8 and PRAME IHC positivity had a sensitivity of 39.4% (95% CI 29.7-49.7%) and specificity of 99.1% (95% CI 95.0-100.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

S100A8 and PRAME have utility in the diagnostic workup of melanoma, with S100A8 being more specific and PRAME being more sensitive when using this threshold. Our findings suggest that these two immunohistochemical markers may favourably complement one another to improve the detection of melanoma.

A clinical impact study of dermatologists' use of diagnostic gene expression profile testing to guide patient management

Aim: Cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms with diagnostic and/or clinical ambiguity pose patient management challenges. Methods: Six randomized case scenarios with diagnostic/clinical uncertainty were described with/without a benign or malignant diagnostic gene expression profile (GEP) result. Results: Clinical impact was assessed by reporting the mean increase/decrease of management changes normalized to baseline (n = 32 dermatologists). Benign GEP results prompted clinicians to decrease surgical margins (84.2%). Malignant GEP results escalated surgical excision recommendations (100%). A majority (72.2%) reduced and nearly all (98.9%) increased follow-up frequency for benign or malignant GEP results, respectively. There was an overall increase in management plan confidence with GEP results. Conclusion: Diagnostic GEP tests help guide clinical decision-making in a variety of diagnostically ambiguous or clinicopathologically discordant scenarios.

A Comparison of Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma Immunohistochemistry and Diagnostic Gene Expression-Profiling Assay in Challenging Melanocytic Proliferations

ABSTRACT

Most melanocytic tumors are classified as benign or malignant based on clinical morphology, histology, and immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis. A subset of more challenging cases with ambiguous features may require further evaluation with established ancillary diagnostic molecular studies, including fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or single nucleotide polymorphism array, to increase diagnostic certainty. More recently, a diagnostic gene expression-profiling (GEP) assay and an IHC stain for the detection of PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) have been developed. The use of PRAME IHC has been validated in cases of unequivocal and ambiguous melanocytic proliferations via comparing results with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or single nucleotide polymorphism array. A study comparing performance metrics of PRAME IHC and diagnostic GEP has not been previously published. Herein, we evaluated the use of PRAME IHC in 55 melanocytic tumors with challenging histomorphology by comparing the results with diagnostic GEP and final histomorphologic diagnosis. Intertest agreement occurred in 88% of cases. PRAME IHC supported the final diagnosis in 89% of cases with a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 95%, and positive predictive value of 88.2%. GEP agreed with the final diagnosis in 88% of cases with a sensitivity of 65%, 97% specificity, and positively predicted melanoma in 91.7% of cases. Because the results of this study align with past publications evaluating the performance metrics of PRAME IHC, showing it to be as sensitive as and more cost effective than all other ancillary molecular tests, we propose the use of PRAME IHC as the optimal first-line diagnostic tool for ambiguous melanocytic proliferations.

The Use of Gene Expression Profiling and Biomarkers in Melanoma Diagnosis and Predicting Recurrence: Implications for Surveillance and Treatment

Cutaneous melanoma is becoming more prevalent in the United States and has the highest mortality among cutaneous malignancies. The majority of melanomas are diagnosed at an early stage and, as such, survival is generally favorable. However, there remains prognostic uncertainty among subsets of early- and intermediate-stage melanoma patients, some of whom go on to develop advanced disease while others remain disease-free. Melanoma gene expression profiling (GEP) has evolved with the notion to help bridge this gap and identify higher- or lower-risk patients to better tailor treatment and surveillance protocols. These tests seek to prognosticate melanomas independently of established AJCC 8 cancer staging and clinicopathologic features (sex, age, primary tumor location, thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, microsatellites, and/or SLNB status). While there is a significant opportunity to improve the accuracy of melanoma prognostication and diagnosis, it is equally important to understand the current landscape of molecular profiling for melanoma treatment. Society guidelines currently do not recommend molecular testing outside of clinical trials for melanoma clinical decision making, citing insufficient high-quality evidence guiding indications for the testing and interpretation of results. The goal of this chapter is to review the available literature for GEP testing for melanoma diagnosis and prognostication and understand their place in current treatment paradigms.

Diagnostic utility of the 23-gene expression profile test for an atypical intradermal melanocytic proliferation

Ancillary tests such as immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene expression profile (GEP) testing may be needed to arrive at a definitive diagnosis for some atypical melanocytic neoplasms. A 34-year-old male with a family history of melanoma presented with a large, heterogeneous melanocytic lesion on the cheek. Histopathological review of two biopsies revealed an atypical intradermal melanocytic proliferation with spitzoid features without ulceration or regression. Scattered mitotic figures were identified. In addition to performing SOX10 IHC, PRAME and HMB45 staining highlighted weak, patchy positivity that was stronger in superficial, pleomorphic melanocytes (Ki-67, 5-7% mitotic rate). Based on these concerning but ambiguous IHC results and lingering concern for melanoma reiterated by other consulting dermatopathologists, the 23-GEP was requested for both specimens, which both returned a malignant result. The inconclusive histopathological features of malignancy were resolved by 23-GEP testing, facilitating a final diagnosis of malignant melanoma (pT3a, 2.5 mm Breslow depth, Clark's level IV).

Advances in melanoma: epidemiology, diagnosis, and prognosis

Unraveling the multidimensional complexities of melanoma has required concerted efforts by dedicated community of researchers and clinicians battling against this deadly form of skin cancer. Remarkable advances have been made in the realm of epidemiology, classification, diagnosis, and therapy of melanoma. The treatment of advanced melanomas has entered the golden era as targeted personalized therapies have emerged that have significantly altered the mortality rate. A paradigm shift in the approach to melanoma classification, diagnosis, prognosis, and staging is underway, fueled by discoveries of genetic alterations in melanocytic neoplasms. A morphologic clinicopathologic classification of melanoma is expected to be replaced by a more precise molecular based one. As validated, convenient, and cost-effective molecular-based tests emerge, molecular diagnostics will play a greater role in the clinical and histologic diagnosis of melanoma. Artificial intelligence augmented clinical and histologic diagnosis of melanoma is expected to make the process more streamlined and efficient. A more accurate model of prognosis and staging of melanoma is emerging based on molecular understanding melanoma. This contribution summarizes the recent advances in melanoma epidemiology, classification, diagnosis, and prognosis.

Cutaneous Melanoma: A Review of Multifactorial Pathogenesis, Immunohistochemistry, and Emerging Biomarkers for Early Detection and Management

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is an increasingly significant public health concern. Due to alarming mortality rates and escalating incidence, it is crucial to understand its etiology and identify emerging biomarkers for improved diagnosis and treatment strategies. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the multifactorial etiology of CM, underscore the importance of early detection, discuss the molecular mechanisms behind melanoma development and progression, and shed light on the role of the potential biomarkers in diagnosis and treatment. The pathogenesis of CM involves a complex interplay of genetic predispositions and environmental exposures, ultraviolet radiation exposure being the predominant environmental risk factor. The emergence of new biomarkers, such as novel immunohistochemical markers, gene mutation analysis, microRNA, and exosome protein expressions, holds promise for improved early detection, and prognostic and personalized therapeutic strategies.

Immunohistochemistry for PRAME in Dermatopathology

ABSTRACT

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is a tumor-associated antigen first identified in a melanoma patient and found to be expressed in most melanomas as well as in variable levels in other malignant neoplasms of epithelial, mesenchymal, or hematolymphoid lineage. Detection of PRAME expression in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue is possible by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with commercially available monoclonal antibodies. In situ and invasive melanoma frequently show a diffuse pattern of nuclear PRAME immunoreactivity which contrasts with the infrequent and typically nondiffuse staining seen in nevi. In many challenging melanocytic tumors, results of PRAME IHC and other ancillary tests correlate well, but not always: The tests are not interchangeable. Most metastatic melanomas are positive for PRAME, whereas nodal nevi are not. Numerous studies on PRAME IHC have become available in the past few years with results supporting the value of PRAME IHC as an ancillary tool in the evaluation of melanocytic lesions and providing insights into limitations in sensitivity and specificity as well as possible pitfalls that need to be kept in mind by practicing pathologists.

Ancillary testing for melanoma: current trends and practical considerations

The diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is aided by ancillary testing, but clinical inspection with the histomorphological assessment on biopsy remains sufficient in most cases. Immunohistochemistry and molecular studies have proven useful for diminishing the pool of histomorphologically borderline lesions, and sequential testing may further improve overall diagnostic performance, but these assays should be used in a stepwise fashion if at all. Ancillary tests vary based on their technology, performance, and practical considerations, including but not limited to the specific diagnostic question, cost, and turn-around time, which impact test selection. This review examines currently used ancillary tests for the purpose of characterizing melanocytic lesions. Both scientific and practical considerations are discussed.

Real world validation of an adjunctive gene expression-profiling assay for melanoma diagnosis and correlation with clinical outcomes at an academic center

A commercially available diagnostic gene expression profiling (GEP) assay (MyPath™) reportedly has high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing nevi from melanoma based on manufacturer-conducted studies. However, data regarding the performance of this GEP assay in routine clinical practice are lacking. The purpose of this study was to better assess the real-world performance of GEP in a large academic practice. Retrospective review of GEP scores were compared with final histomorphologic interpretation on a wide spectrum of melanocytic lesions demonstrating some degree of atypia. In a sample of 369 lesions, the sensitivity (76.1%) and specificity (83.9%) of the GEP test as compared with final dermatopathologist-rendered diagnosis in our dataset was appreciably lower than that reported in the prior manufacturer-conducted validation studies. Limitations of this study were that it was a single-center study, its retrospective nature, nonblinded nature of GEP test result, concordance of only two pathologists, and limited follow-up time.The sensitivity and specificity of a commercially available GEP diagnostic assay for melanoma may be lower in routine clinical practice, where melanocytic lesions typically exhibit some degree of histomorphologic atypia. Reported cost effectiveness of GEP testing is questionable if all ambiguous lesions that undergo such testing are re-excised in clinical practice.

Plasma Thermogram Parameters Differentiate Status and Overall Survival of Melanoma Patients

Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the United States and the deadliest of all skin cancers. Even with recent advancements in treatment, there is still a 13% two-year recurrence rate, with approximately 30% of recurrences being distant metastases. Identifying patients at high risk for recurrence or advanced disease is critical for optimal clinical decision-making. Currently, there is substantial variability in the selection of screening tests and imaging, with most modalities characterized by relatively low accuracy. In the current study, we built upon a preliminary examination of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) in the melanoma setting to examine its utility for diagnostic and prognostic assessment. Using regression analysis, we found that selected DSC profile (thermogram) parameters were useful for differentiation between melanoma patients and healthy controls, with more complex models distinguishing melanoma patients with no evidence of disease from patients with active disease. Thermogram features contributing to the third principal component (PC3) were useful for differentiation between controls and melanoma patients, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that PC3 was useful for predicting the overall survival of active melanoma patients. With the further development and optimization of the classification method, DSC could complement current diagnostic strategies to improve screening, diagnosis, and prognosis of melanoma patients.

Potential diagnostic utility of PRAME and p16 immunohistochemistry in melanocytic nevi and malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) is a tumor-associated antigen that has been studied in various cutaneous melanocytic lesions. p16, on the other hand, has been proposed to aid in distinguishing between benign and malignant melanocytic neoplasms. Studies on the diagnostic utility of PRAME and p16 in combination in differentiating nevi from melanoma are limited. We aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of PRAME and p16 in melanocytic tumors and their role in distinguishing between malignant melanomas and melanocytic nevi.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort analysis over a 4-year period (2017-2020). We used the pathological database of malignant melanomas (77 cases) and melanocytic nevi (51 cases) specimens from patients who underwent shave/punch biopsies or surgical excisions and evaluated immunohistochemical staining percentage positivity and intensity for PRAME and p16.

RESULTS

Most malignant melanomas showed positive/diffuse PRAME expression (89.6%); on the other hand, 96.1% of nevi did not express PRAME diffusely. p16 was expressed consistently in nevi (98.0%). However, p16 expression in malignant melanoma was infrequent in our study. PRAME had a sensitivity and specificity of 89.6% and 96.1%, respectively, for melanomas versus nevi; on the other hand, p16 had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.0% and 28.6%, respectively, for nevi versus melanoma. Also, a PRAME+/p16- melanocytic lesion is unlikely to be a nevus where most nevi were PRAME-/p16+.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we confirm the potential utility of PRAME and p16 for distinguishing melanocytic nevi from malignant melanomas.

Molecular testing in melanoma for the surgical pathologist

The diagnostic work-up of melanocytic tumours has undergone significant changes in the last years following the exponential growth of molecular assays. For the practising pathologist it is often difficult to sort through the multitude of different tests that are currently available for clinical use. The molecular tests used in melanocytic pathology can be broadly divided into four categories: (1) tests that predict response to systemic therapy in melanoma; (2) tests that predict prognosis in melanoma; (3) tests useful in determining the type or class of melanocytic tumour; and (4) tests useful in the differential diagnosis of naevus versus melanoma (primarily used as an aid in the diagnosis of histologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions). This review will present an updated synopsis of major molecular ancillary tests used in clinical practice.

Diagnostic error, uncertainty, and overdiagnosis in melanoma

Diagnostic error can be defined as deviation from a gold standard diagnosis, typically defined in terms of expert opinion, although sometimes in terms of unexpected events that might occur in follow-up (such as progression and death from disease). Although diagnostic error does exist for melanoma, deviations from gold standard diagnosis, certainly among appropriately trained and experienced practitioners, are likely to be the result of uncertainty and lack of specific criteria, and differences of opinion, rather than lack of diagnostic skills. In this review, the concept of diagnostic error will be considered in relation to diagnostic uncertainty, and the concept of overdiagnosis in melanoma will be presented and discussed.

New Technologies in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Melanocytic Lesions

Analysis of morphological characteristics for the diagnosis of melanoma remains a challenge. New technologies for the diagnosis and prognosis of melanocytic lesions have been emerging to ensure earlier and more accurate detection. In this article, we review multiple technologies that improve melanoma diagnostic accuracy such as electrical impedance spectroscopy, pigmented lesion assay, reflectance confocal microscopy, and gene expression profile tests.

PRAME is a useful marker for the differential diagnosis of melanocytic tumours and histological mimics

AIMS

Although the morphological assessment of melanoma is generally straightforward, diagnosis can be especially difficult when the significant morphological and immunohistochemical results overlap with those of benign and malignant melanocytic tumours and histological mimics. This study assessed the potential diagnostic utility of measuring PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemically in naevi, melanomas and clear cell sarcomas (CCSs) in Chinese patients.

METHODS

We examined the immunohistochemical expression of PRAME in 317 melanocytic naevi, 178 primary melanomas, 72 metastatic melanomas and 19 CCSs and compared the sensitivity and specificity of PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the differential diagnosis of melanocytic tumours and histological mimics.

RESULTS

Of the 317 melanocytic naevi, 98.1%were completely negative for PRAME; six cases showed focal PRAME immunoreactivity in a minor population of lesional melanocytes. Diffuse nuclear immunoreactivity for PRAME was found in 89.9% of primary melanomas and 93.1% of metastatic melanomas. Regarding melanoma subtypes, PRAME was expressed in 100% of superficial spreading melanomas, 100% of melanomas arise in congenital naevus, 91.4% of nodular melanomas, 87.8% of acral lentigo melanomas, 80.0% of lentigo malignant melanomas, 60.0% of Spitz melanomas, 96.2% of mucosal melanomas and 80.0% of uveal melanomas. None of the two desmoplastic melanomas expressed PRAME. Of the 19 CCS cases, 89.5% were negative for PRAME and 10.5% showed focal weak PRAME immunoreactivity in a minor population of tumour cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that PRAME may be a useful marker to support a suspected diagnosis of melanoma. In addition, lack of PRAME expression is a valuable hint to CCS in a suspected case, and then molecular confirmation of the presence of EWSR1 rearrangement is necessary.

Dermatologic Disease-Directed Targeted Therapy (D3T2): The Application of Biomarker-Based Precision Medicine for the Personalized Treatment of Skin Conditions-Precision Dermatology

Precision dermatology uses individualized dermatologic disease-directed targeted therapy (D3T2) for the management of dermatoses and for the evaluation and therapy of cutaneous malignancies. Personalized/precision strategies are based on biomarkers that are most frequently derived from tissue transcriptomic expression or genomic sequencing or from circulating cytokines. For instance, the pathologic diagnosis of a pigmented lesion and determining the prognosis of a malignant melanocytic neoplasm can be enhanced by genomic/transcriptomic analysis. In addition to biopsy, innovative techniques have been developed for obtaining transcriptomes in skin conditions; as an example, patches can be applied to a psoriasis plaque for a few minutes to capture the epidermis/upper dermis transcriptome. Atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis may also be candidate conditions for precision dermatology. Precision dermatology has a role in managing melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers and rare cutaneous tumors-such as perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa)-that can originate in or metastasize to the skin. For instance, advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinomas can be treated with Hedgehog inhibitors (vismodegib and sonidegib) targeting the smoothened (SMO) or patched 1 (PTCH1) gene alterations that are a hallmark of these cancers and activate the Hedgehog pathway. Advanced/metastatic basal and cutaneous squamous cell cancers often have a high tumor mutational burden (which predicts immunotherapy response); immune checkpoint blockade with cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) inhibitor, is now approved for these malignancies. Gene expression profiling of primary cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma can identify those individuals at high risk for subsequent metastases. In the realm of rare neoplasms, PEComas-which can originate in the skin, albeit uncommonly-have tuberous sclerosis complex 1 (TSC1)/tuberous sclerosis complex 2 (TSC2) gene alterations, which activate mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling, and can be suppressed by nab-sirolimus, now approved for this condition. In summary, precision dermatologic techniques/strategies are an important emerging approach for evaluation and management of skin disorders and cutaneous neoplasms, and may serve as a paradigm for the application of precision medicine beyond dermatology.

A Rare Case of Primary Cutaneous Signet-Ring Cell Melanoma With Discrepant Findings on Gene Expression Profiling and Chromosomal Microarray Analysis

ABSTRACT

Melanoma with signet ring cell features is an exceptionally rare variant of primary cutaneous and metastatic melanoma. The molecular mechanisms underlying this unusual cytologic phenotype in malignant melanocytes are largely unknown. In this report, we aim to add to the literature by describing the histomorphological, immunophenotypic, gene expression, and cytogenetic findings in 1 recently encountered case.

Molecular Pathology of Skin Melanoma: Epidemiology, Differential Diagnostics, Prognosis and Therapy Prediction

Similar to other malignancies, TCGA network efforts identified the detailed genomic picture of skin melanoma, laying down the basis of molecular classification. On the other hand, genome-wide association studies discovered the genetic background of the hereditary melanomas and the susceptibility genes. These genetic studies helped to fine-tune the differential diagnostics of malignant melanocytic lesions, using either FISH tests or the myPath gene expression signature. Although the original genomic studies on skin melanoma were mostly based on primary tumors, data started to accumulate on the genetic diversity of the progressing disease. The prognostication of skin melanoma is still based on staging but can be completed with gene expression analysis (DecisionDx). Meanwhile, this genetic knowledge base of skin melanoma did not turn to the expected wide array of target therapies, except the BRAF inhibitors. The major breakthrough of melanoma therapy was the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which showed outstanding efficacy in skin melanoma, probably due to their high immunogenicity. Unfortunately, beyond BRAF, KIT mutations and tumor mutation burden, no clinically validated predictive markers exist in melanoma, although several promising biomarkers have been described, such as the expression of immune-related genes or mutations in the IFN-signaling pathway. After the initial success of either target or immunotherapies, sooner or later, relapses occur in the majority of patients, due to various induced genetic alterations, the diagnosis of which could be developed to novel predictive genetic markers.

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma immunohistochemistry as an adjunct for differential diagnosis in acral lentiginous melanoma and acral nevi

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) has shown promising utility in distinguishing benign melanocytic lesions from melanomas, but knowledge of its expression pattern in acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) and acral nevi (ANs) is limited. Immunohistochemical expression of PRAME was examined in 75 ALMs and 34 ANs. The clinical and histopathologic characteristics of patients with ALM were collected. PRAME was immunoreactive in 89.3% (67/75) of ALMs, but entirely negative in 94.1% (32/34) of ANs. When staining at least 50% of lesional melanocytes was determined as positivity, the sensitivity and specificity of PRAME for distinguishing ALM from ANs were 69.3% and 100%, respectively. Seventy-one cases of ALMs had tumor cells in the epidermis; 71.8% (51/71) of them showed positive for PRAME. By contrast, 61 ALMs had tumor cells in the dermis; 65.6% (40/61) exhibited positive expression. Twenty-nine of 39 (74.4%) epithelioid cell ALMs were observed to be positive for PRAME. By comparison, 63.8% (23/36) of ALMs with spindle tumor cells were positive for PRAME. However, PRAME positive expression was not associated with any clinical and histopathologic characteristics of patients with ALM, including Breslow thickness, ulcer, cytomorphology, lymph node metastasis, or tumor-infiltrated lymphocytes (TILs). Nevertheless, we observed that 82.6% (19/23) of ALMs with lymph node involvement at diagnosis expressed PRAME, compared with 57.6% (20/35) of those without. In summary, PRAME immunohistochemistry can serve as a helpful adjunct in the differential diagnosis of ALMs and ANs with good sensitivity and high specificity. Additionally, PRAME tends to have a higher positive rate in epidermal melanocytes than in the dermis and is inclined to express in epithelioid cells than in spindle cells of ALMs.

Role of Biomarkers in the Integrated Management of Melanoma

Melanoma, which is an aggressive skin cancer, is currently the fifth and seventh most common cancer in men and women, respectively. The American Cancer Society reported that approximately 106,110 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the United States in 2021, with 7,180 people dying from the disease. This information could facilitate the early detection of possible metastatic lesions and the development of novel therapeutic techniques for melanoma. Additionally, early detection of malignant melanoma remains an objective of melanoma research. Recently, melanoma treatment has substantially improved, given the availability of targeted treatments and immunotherapy. These developments have highlighted the significance of identifying biomarkers for prognosis and predicting therapy response. Biomarkers included tissue protein expression, circulating DNA detection, and genetic alterations in cancer cells. Improved diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are becoming increasingly relevant in melanoma treatment, with the development of newer and more targeted treatments. Here, the author discusses the aspects of biomarkers in the real-time management of patients with melanoma.

PRAME Expression in Challenging Dermal Melanocytic Neoplasms and Soft Tissue Tumors With Melanocytic Differentiation

ABSTRACT

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is an immunohistochemical biomarker that is diffusely expressed in most cutaneous melanomas and is negative in most benign nevi. Histologically challenging dermal melanocytic neoplasms, such as cellular blue nevi (CBN) and deep penetrating nevi (DPN), and soft tissue tumors with melanocytic differentiation, such as clear cell sarcoma and perivascular epithelioid cell tumor, may resemble primary or metastatic melanoma. PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) was applied to archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens of various dermal melanocytic neoplasms and soft tissue neoplasms with melanocytic differentiation. Staining was graded based on the percentage of melanocytes labeled (0-4+ as previously reported). The gold standard was final pathologic diagnosis using histologic, immunophenotypic, and in some cases molecular findings. Fifty-four cases were evaluated. 62.5% (5/8) of blue nevus-like melanomas and 50% (1/2) of DPN-like melanomas were PRAME positive (4+). Of the other tumors, 100% (20/20) of CBN (including 1 atypical CBN with borderline features); 100% (12/12) of DPN, combined DPN, or borderline DPN; 88.9% (8/9) of perivascular epithelioid cell tumors; and 100% (3/3) of clear cell sarcoma were PRAME negative (0-2+). Within the borderline categories specifically, all 8 tumors (1 borderline CBN and 7 borderline DPN) showed low (0-2+) PRAME expression. Overall, the sensitivity for melanoma in this context was 60%, with a specificity of 97.7%. Although our sample size is limited, the results suggest that IHC staining for PRAME may be useful in supporting a diagnosis of melanoma in the setting of challenging dermal melanocytic neoplasms and other epithelioid neoplasms with melanocytic differentiation. However, PRAME IHC lacks sensitivity in this context.

Shared Gene Expression and Immune Pathway Changes Associated with Progression from Nevi to Melanoma

Simple Summary

Melanoma is a deadly skin cancer, and the incidence of melanoma is rising. Chemoprevention, using small molecule drugs to prevent the development of cancer, is a key strategy that could reduce the burden of melanoma on society. The long-term goal of our study is to develop a gene signature biomarker of progression from nevi to melanoma. We found that a small number of genes can distinguish nevi from melanoma and identified shared genes and immune-related pathways that are associated with progression from nevi to melanoma across independent datasets. This study demonstrates (1) a novel approach to aid melanoma chemoprevention trials by using a gene signature as a surrogate endpoint and (2) the feasibility of determining a gene signature biomarker of melanoma progression.

Abstract

There is a need to identify molecular biomarkers of melanoma progression to assist the development of chemoprevention strategies to lower melanoma incidence. Using datasets containing gene expression for dysplastic nevi and melanoma or melanoma arising in a nevus, we performed differential gene expression analysis and regularized regression models to identify genes and pathways that were associated with progression from nevi to melanoma. A small number of genes distinguished nevi from melanoma. Differential expression of seven genes was identified between nevi and melanoma in three independent datasets. C1QB, CXCL9, CXCL10, DFNA5 (GSDME), FCGR1B, and PRAME were increased in melanoma, and SCGB1D2 was decreased in melanoma, compared to dysplastic nevi or nevi that progressed to melanoma. Further supporting an association with melanomagenesis, these genes demonstrated a linear change in expression from benign nevi to dysplastic nevi to radial growth phase melanoma to vertical growth phase melanoma. The genes associated with melanoma progression showed significant enrichment of multiple pathways related to the immune system. This study demonstrates (1) a novel application of bioinformatic approaches to aid clinical trials of melanoma chemoprevention and (2) the feasibility of determining a gene signature biomarker of melanomagenesis.

Correlation of FISH and PRAME Immunohistochemistry in Ambiguous Superficial Cutaneous Melanocytic Proliferations

ABSTRACT

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is a tumor-associated repressor of retinoic acid signaling which is expressed in melanoma and has emerged as a potential biomarker for malignant behavior in melanocytic neoplasms. Although ancillary molecular techniques such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are established techniques in the diagnosis of problematic cutaneous melanocytic proliferations, they are expensive, time-consuming, and require appropriate infrastructure, which places them out of reach of some laboratories. The advent of readily available commercial antibodies to PRAME has the potential to provide a more accessible alternative. The aim of this study was to determine whether immunohistochemistry for PRAME could serve as a surrogate for FISH analysis in a subgroup of challenging superficial melanocytic proliferations. Cases which had previously been submitted for FISH analysis were stained for PRAME and interpreted by a panel of at least 3 dermatopathologists is a blinded fashion. Of a study set of 55 cases, 42 (76%) showed a pattern of PRAME immunostaining which was concordant with the cytogenetic interpretation, with an unweighted kappa of 0.42 (representing mild-to-moderate agreement). Thus, although there was a correlation between positive immunohistochemistry for PRAME and abnormal findings on FISH analysis, in our view, the concordance was not sufficient to enable PRAME immunohistochemistry to act as a surrogate for FISH testing. Our findings reiterate the principle that interpretation of problematic superficial melanocytic proliferations requires a synthesis of all the available data, including clinical scenario, morphological features, immunohistochemistry, and ancillary molecular investigations.

Histopathologic and Molecular Diagnosis of Melanoma

Conventional histopathology is the primary means of melanoma diagnosis. Both architectural and cytologic features aid in discrimination of melanocytic nevi from melanoma. Communication between the clinician and pathologist regarding the history, examination, differential diagnosis, prior biopsy findings, method of sampling, and specimen orientation is critical to an accurate diagnosis. A melanoma pathology report includes multiple prognostic indicators to guide surgical and medical management. In challenging cases, immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics may be of benefit.

The utility of PRAME immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of challenging melanocytic tumors

BACKGROUND

PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in Melanoma) immunohistochemistry has demonstrated high specificity for unequivocal melanomas; however, its utility in ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms has yet to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

Cases of challenging melanocytic neoplasms were subclassified into one of three categories: challenging, favor benign (FB), challenging, cannot be subclassified (CCS), or challenging, favor malignant (FM). Using a previously published system, whereby cases with diffuse staining (>75%) were considered positive, scoring of PRAME was performed. Additionally, tumors with hotspot staining were also considered positive.

RESULTS

Sixteen out of 85 tumors showed positive staining representing 5% of FB tumors, 24% of CCS tumors, and 47% of FM. In FB and CCS tumors, positive staining was mainly encountered in atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferations and spitzoid neoplasms. The specificity of positive PRAME staining was 95% and its concordance with the final diagnostic interpretation was 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

PRAME positivity is more common in neoplasms favored to be malignant by histopathologic evaluation. Its clinical utility may include early diagnosis of incipient melanoma in situ. Rarely, benign melanocytic neoplasms could show diffuse expression of PRAME, and additional studies are needed to determine optimal utilization. Lastly, hotspot staining may increase its sensitivity without much compromise in specificity.

Gene expression profiling in melanoma: A view from the clinic

The treatment of Melanoma, one of the most aggressive human malignancies, has been revolutionised by the advent of novel targeted and immuno-therapies. However, methods utilised to detect early presentations, and to stratify risk for patients diagnosed with invasive melanoma in the clinical setting are lagging. The primary prognostic indicator is restricted to Breslow Thickness, or depth the tumour invades into the dermis. Gene Expression Profiling (GEP), the analysis of molecular gene signatures of an individual tumour, has been implemented with great success in other malignancies, such as breast and prostate cancer. In the setting of melanoma, commercial GEP panels are becoming available, offering patients a personalised approach, though yet to enter widespread clinical use. This short perspective seeks to describe how GEP is currently employed in practice, and its current clinical impact. We also suggest the potential roles for GEP in meeting the key clinical challenges faced by clinicians in melanoma treatment, such as decisions around adjuvant therapy, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and surgical resection , thus highlighting areas for future potential research.

Mucosal Melanoma: Pathological Evolution, Pathway Dependency and Targeted Therapy

Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare melanoma subtype that originates from melanocytes within sun-protected mucous membranes. Compared with cutaneous melanoma (CM), MM has worse prognosis and lacks effective treatment options. Moreover, the endogenous or exogenous risk factors that influence mucosal melanocyte transformation, as well as the identity of MM precursor lesions, are ambiguous. Consequently, there remains a lack of molecular markers that can be used for early diagnosis, and therefore better management, of MM. In this review, we first summarize the main functions of mucosal melanocytes. Then, using oral mucosal melanoma (OMM) as a model, we discuss the distinct pathologic stages from benign mucosal melanocytes to metastatic MM, mapping the possible evolutionary trajectories that correspond to MM initiation and progression. We highlight key areas of ambiguity during the genetic evolution of MM from its benign lesions, and the resolution of which could aid in the discovery of new biomarkers for MM detection and diagnosis. We outline the key pathways that are altered in MM, including the MAPK pathway, the PI3K/AKT pathway, cell cycle regulation, telomere maintenance, and the RNA maturation process, and discuss targeted therapy strategies for MM currently in use or under investigation.

PRAME immunohistochemistry as an adjunct for diagnosis and histological margin assessment in lentigo maligna

AIMS

Lentigo maligna (LM), the most common type of melanoma in situ, is a diagnostically challenging lesion for pathologists due to abundant background melanocytic hyperplasia in sun-damaged skin. Currently, no laboratory methods reliably distinguish benign from malignant melanocytes. However, preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) has shown promise in this regard, and could potentially be applied to diagnosis and margin assessment in difficult cases of LM.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety-six cases with a diagnosis of LM (n = 77) or no residual LM (n = 19) following initial biopsy were identified and stained with an antibody directed towards PRAME. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was scored as positive or negative, and measurement of histological margins by PRAME was performed and compared to the measurement of histological margins using conventional methods [haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and/or sex-determining region Y-box 10 (SOX10) and/or Melan-A]. Of cases with LM, 93.5% (72 of 77) were PRAME+ and 94.7% (18 of 19) of cases with no residual LM were PRAME- . Of the 35 cases with no margin involvement by PRAME or conventional assessment, 14 cases (40.0%) had no difference in measurement, 17 (48.6%) had a difference of 1 mm or less and four (11.4%) differed by between 1 and 3.5 mm. There was a high correlation between margin assessment methods (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

PRAME IHC is a sensitive (93.5%) and specific (94.7%) method for diagnosing LM on biopsy and excision, and measurement of histological margins by PRAME shows a high correlation with conventional methods for margin assessment. Furthermore, the nuclear expression of PRAME makes it a good target for use in dual-colour IHC stains.

Cross-reactivity of NRASQ61R antibody in a subset of Spitz nevi with 11p gain: a potential confounding factor in the era of pathway-based diagnostic approach

The most recent World Health Organization classification for skin tumors (2018) categorizes melanomas and their precursor lesions, benign or intermediate, into nine pathways based not only on their clinical and histomorphologic characteristics but also on their molecular profile and genetic fingerprint. In an index case of a partially sampled atypical spitzoid lesion, which proved to be an 11p-amplified Spitz nevus with HRASQ61R mutation, we observed cross-reactivity with the NRASQ61R antibody (clone SP174). Overall, we assessed the status of HRAS and NRAS genes and their immunoreaction to NRASQ61R antibody in 16 cases of 11p-amplified Spitz nevi/atypical Spitz tumors. We also assessed the immunoexpression of NRASQ61R antibody in various malignancies with proven BRAFV600E, NRASQ61R, L or K, KRASQ61R and HRASQ61R, and HRASQ61R mutations and ALK+ Spitz lesions. Finally, we assessed the expression of PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemistry in our 11p Spitz cohort. Three of 16 cases (3/16) harbored the HRASQ61R mutation and exhibited diffuse immunoreaction with the NRASQ61R antibody. All the cases in our cohort were negative for the NRASQ61R mutation. All NRASQ61R-, KRASQ61R-, and HRASQ61R-mutated neoplasms were positive for the antibody, further supporting the cross-reactivity between the RAS proteins. All the cases of our cohort were essentially negative for PRAME immunohistochemistry. In the era of pathway-based approach in the diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms, the cross-reactivity between the NRASQ61R- and HRASQ61R-mutated proteins can lead to a diagnostic pitfall in the assessment of lesions with spitzoid characteristics.

Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma Immunostaining in a Series of Melanocytic Neoplasms

ABSTRACT

In their 2018 article, Lezcano et al [AJSP 2018(11):1456] show that diffuse tumor cell nuclear reactivity for Preferentially expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME) is a feature of melanoma and that benign and atypical melanocytic tumors are PRAME negative or show only focal positivity for PRAME. We report our observations of PRAME staining in 253 melanocytic tumors. Tumors were classified by hematoxylin and eosin sections. The nuclear PRAME staining of neoplastic melanocytes in each case was categorized as absent, focally present, or diffusely present. The results were compared with those of Lezcano et al 105 of 134 (78%) melanocytic nevi were completely PRAME negative. Of the 29 PRAME-positive benign lesions, 28 exhibited focal but not diffuse positivity, including atypical (n = 11) and dysplastic nevi (n = 11). One of 11 Spitz nevi showed diffuse positivity (9%). Thirty-nine of 51 (76%) invasive melanomas, 41 of 50 (82%) melanoma in situ, and 15 of 18 (83%) metastatic melanomas were diffusely PRAME positive. Excluding desmoplastic melanomas, 39 of 49 (80%) primary melanomas were diffusely PRAME positive. Our findings of PRAME staining in melanocytic neoplasia are in general agreement with those of Lezcano et al. Diffuse PRAME reactivity in neoplastic melanocytes is a feature of malignancy and was only otherwise seen in 1 Spitz nevus. Caution is advised in interpretation of PRAME reactivity in melanocytic tumors of uncertain classification because melanoma arising in association with nevus and some atypical melanocytic tumors may show focal or incomplete PRAME staining. Routine histopathological findings, clinical information, PRAME staining, and judicious application of molecular studies are steps leading to accurate classification of melanocytic neoplasia.

PRAME Immunohistochemistry as an Ancillary Test for the Assessment of Melanocytic Lesions

PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) is a melanoma-associated antigen expressed in cutaneous and ocular melanomas and some other malignant neoplasms, while its expression in normal tissue and benign tumors is limited. Detection of PRAME protein expression by immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 400 melanocytic tumors showed diffuse nuclear immunoreactivity for PRAME in most metastatic and primary melanomas. In contrast, most nevi were negative for PRAME or showed nondiffuse immunoreactivity. The difference in the extent of immunoreactivity for PRAME in unambiguous melanocytic tumors prompted the study of PRAME as an ancillary tool for evaluating melanocytic lesions in more challenging scenarios.

Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects

Despite significant progress in the development of treatment options, melanoma remains a leading cause of death due to skin cancer. Advances in our understanding of the genetic, transcriptomic, and morphologic spectrum of benign and malignant melanocytic neoplasia have enabled the field to propose biomarkers with potential diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive value. While these proposed biomarkers have the potential to improve clinical decision making at multiple critical intervention points, most remain unvalidated. Clinical validation of even the most commonly assessed biomarkers will require substantial resources, including limited clinical specimens. It is therefore important to consider the properties that constitute a relevant and clinically-useful biomarker-based test prior to engaging in large validation studies. In this review article we adapt an established framework for determining minimally-useful biomarker test characteristics, and apply this framework to a discussion of currently used and proposed biomarkers designed to aid melanoma detection, staging, prognosis, and choice of treatment.

The utility of PRAME staining in identifying malignant transformation of melanocytic nevi

BACKGROUND

PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemical (IHC) staining is used to aid melanoma diagnosis. PRAME expression in nevus-associated melanoma (NAM) has not been evaluated.

METHODS

PRAME IHC was applied to cases of NAM; staining for each population of melanocytes (benign and malignant) was graded based on the percentage of labeled cells. No labeling was graded 0, 1% to 25% labeling was 1+, 26% to 50% was 2+, 51% to 75% was 3+, and >76% was 4+.

RESULTS

Thirty-six cases were reviewed. Sixty-seven percent (24/36) of melanomas were PRAME positive (4+) while no (0/36) nevi showed 4+ positivity. Eighty-one percent (29/36) of nevi were completely PRAME negative compared to 17% (6/36) of melanomas. In 67% of cases (24/36) PRAME differentiated between benign and malignant melanocyte populations.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a high rate (67%) of differential PRAME staining in adjacent benign and malignant melanocyte populations in NAM. In PRAME positive (4+) melanomas, PRAME differentiates 100% (24/24) of benign and malignant melanocyte populations. When 4+ staining is used as the threshold for positivity, PRAME staining has a sensitivity of 67% (24/36) and a specificity of 100% (36/36). These results support PRAME IHC can assist in distinguishing melanocyte populations in melanoma arising within nevi.

Regional Adoption of Commercial Gene Expression Testing for Prostate Cancer

Importance

Although tissue-based genomic tests can aid in treatment decision-making for patients with prostate cancer, little is known about their clinical adoption.

Objective

To evaluate regional adoption of genomic testing for prostate cancer and understand common trajectories of uptake shared by regions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This dynamic cohort study of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer used administrative claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, the largest source of commercial health insurance in the US, to characterize temporal trends in the use of commercial, tissue-based genomic testing and calculate the proportion of tested patients at the hospital referral region (HRR) level. Eligible patients from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018, were those aged 40 to 89 years with prostate cancer diagnosed from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Group-based trajectory modeling was used to classify regions according to discrete trajectories of adoption of commercial, tissue-based genomic testing for prostate cancer. Across regions with distinct trajectories, HRR-level sociodemographic and health care contextual characteristics were compared, using data previously calculated among Medicare beneficiaries.

Results

A total of 92 418 men with prostate cancer who met inclusion criteria were identified; the median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (56-63) years. Overall, the proportion of patients who received genomic testing increased from 0.8% in July 2012 to June 2013 to 11.3% in July 2017 to June 2018. Trajectory modeling identified 5 distinct regional trajectories of genomic testing adoption. Although less than 1% of patients in each group were tested at baseline, group 1 (lowest adoption) increased to 4.0%. Groups 2 (7.8%), 3 (14.6%), and 4 (17.3%) experienced more modest growth, while in group 5 (highest adoption), use increased to 33.8% of patients tested from June 2017 to July 2018. Compared with regions that more slowly adopted testing, HRRs with the highest rate of adoption (group 5) had higher HRR-level education measures (percentage [SD] with college education: group 1, 25.6% [4.8%]; vs group 2, 27.5% [7.3%]; vs group 3, 30.3% [9.1%]; vs group 4, 29.8% [8.2%]; vs group 5, 30.4% [11.4%]; P for trend = .03), median (SD) household income (group 1, $50 412.8 [$6907.4]; vs group 2, $54 419.6 [$11 324.5]; vs group 3, $61 424.0 [$17 723.8]; vs group 4, $58 508.3 [$15 174.6]; vs group 5, $58 367.0 [$13 180.5]; P for trend = .005), and prostate cancer resources, including clinician density (No. [SD] of clinicians per 100 000: group 1, 2.5 [0.3]; vs group 2, 2.5 [0.5]; vs group 3, 2.6 [0.5]; vs group 4, 2.7 [0.7]; vs group 5, 2.6 [0.5]; P for trend = .04) and prostate cancer screening (percentage [SD] of prostate-specific antigen testing among patients aged 68-74 y: group 1, 29.4% [11.8%]; vs group 2, 32.4% [11.2%]; vs group 3, 33.1% [12.7%]; vs group 4, 36.1% [9.7%]; vs group 5, 28.8% [11.8%]; P for trend = .05).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of patients with prostate cancer, the adoption of commercial tissue-based genomic testing for prostate cancer was highly variable in the US at the regional level and may be associated with contextual measures related to socioeconomic status and patterns of prostate cancer care. These findings highlight factors underlying differential adoption of prognostic technologies for patients with cancer.

PRAME expression in 155 cases of metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) is a promising immunohistochemical marker in distinguishing benign from malignant primary cutaneous melanocytic lesions and lymph node deposits. We hypothesize that PRAME may also reliably identify melanoma metastases that are clinically detected in skin, lymph nodes, or small intestine.

METHODS

A total of 155 cases of metastatic melanoma to lymph node (N = 54) and non-lymph node (N = 101) sites were stained with an antibody against PRAME. Nuclear expression was scored in tumor cells as negative, 1% to 25% (1+), 26% to 50% (2+), 51% to 75% (3+), or 76% to 100% (4+).

RESULTS

PRAME expression was seen in 151/155 (97.4%) cases, with 4+ expression in 64 cases (41.3%), 3+ expression in 46 cases (29.7%), 2+ expression in 18 cases (11.6%), and 1+ expression in 23 cases (14.8%). Lymph node metastases were more likely to show lower expression as compared to metastases to other anatomic sites (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of PRAME immunoreactivity was identified in this cohort of metastatic melanoma. Lymph node metastases showed more focal or absent PRAME expression as compared to metastases to other sites. Overall, PRAME is a useful tool for confirming the diagnosis of melanoma in a metastatic setting, in both nodal and visceral deposits.

Comparison of Immunohistochemistry for PRAME With Cytogenetic Test Results in the Evaluation of Challenging Melanocytic Tumors

PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) is a melanoma-associated antigen. Although diffuse immunoreactivity for PRAME is found in most primary cutaneous melanomas, melanocytic nevi express PRAME usually only in a subpopulation of tumor cells or not at all. Hence, testing for PRAME expression has the potential to provide useful information for the assessment for diagnostically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms. Many of the latter tumors are currently studied by cytogenetic methods for ancillary evidence in support of or against a diagnosis of melanoma. In this study we analyzed 110 diagnostically problematic melanocytic tumors comparing results for PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) with those from fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or single nucleotide polymorphism-array, and each with the final diagnostic interpretation. In 90% of cases there was concordance between PRAME IHC and cytogenetic tests results, and in 92.7% concordance between PRAME IHC and the final diagnosis. The high concordance between PRAME IHC and cytogenetic test results as well as the final diagnosis supports the use of PRAME IHC as an ancillary test in the evaluation of ambiguous primary cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms, especially given its practical advantage of lower cost and faster turnaround over cytogenetic or gene expression studies. However, our results indicate that PRAME IHC and cytogenetic tests for melanocytic tumors are not entirely interchangeable and on occasion each type of test may yield false-negative or false-positive results.

Proliferative nodule resembling angiomatoid Spitz tumor with degenerative atypia arising within a giant congenital nevus

Proliferative nodules arising within congenital melanocytic nevi often present a diagnostic challenge given a close resemblance to melanoma. Several morphologic variants have been characterized. In difficult cases, ancillary molecular tests can be used to better exclude the possibility of malignant degeneration. Herein, we report a case of an unusual proliferative nodule with overlapping features of angiomatoid Spitz tumor and ancient melanocytic nevus, which demonstrated normal findings on both chromosomal microarray and a gene expression profiling assay.

Concordance Analysis of the 23-Gene Expression Signature (myPath Melanoma) With Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Assay and Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Array in the Analysis of Challenging Melanocytic Lesions: Results From an Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays are well-established molecular tests for the analysis of challenging melanocytic lesions. A 23-gene expression signature (GES), marketed as myPath Melanoma, is a recently introduced molecular test that categorizes melanocytic lesions as "benign," "malignant," and "indeterminate." There are few studies on the concordance between FISH, SNP, and GES in the analysis of melanocytic lesions.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective analysis of 61 contiguous cases of challenging melanocytic lesions with molecular analysis by 2 or more techniques. The primary objective was to determine the intertest agreement, which was calculated as percent agreement. A secondary objective was to determine the combined-test performance, that is, the frequency of obtaining a successful test (a test with an abnormal or normal, benign or malignant result) when 2 or more molecular tests were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 61 cases, 58 cases were submitted for analysis using the GES assay, 44 cases were submitted for FISH analysis, and 21 cases were submitted for SNP array analysis. Percent agreement between GES and FISH array was 50.9% (18/34), which improved to 69.7% (18/23) when indeterminate/equivocal results were excluded. Similarly, percent agreement between GES and SNP array was 57.1% (8/14); this improved to 77.8% (7/9) when indeterminate/equivocal results were excluded. In 44% of cases submitted for GES and FISH and in 39% of cases submitted for GES and SNP, one test was successful and the other was not.

CONCLUSION

For challenging melanocytic lesions, the choice of a molecular test is consequential as the GES assay correlated with FISH and SNP arrays approximately only half of the time. This improved when cases with indeterminate/equivocal results were excluded from the calculations. The combined-test analysis supports the utility of conducting more than one molecular test, as this increased the odds of obtaining a successful test.