Immunohistochemistry with a mutation-specific monoclonal antibody as a screening tool for the BRAFV600E mutational status in primary cutaneous malignant melanoma

Preclinical Evaluation of a Radiolabeled Pan-RAF Inhibitor for RAF-Specific PET/CT Imaging

Abnormalities in the RAS-RAF signaling pathway occur in many solid tumors, leading to aberrant tumor proliferation, invasion, and metastasis. Due to the elusive pharmacology of RAS, RAF inhibitors have become the main targeted therapeutic drugs. Naporafenib (LXH-254) is a high-affinity pan-RAF inhibitor with FDA Fast Track Qualification. We sought to develop an 18F-labeled molecular probe from LXH-254 for PET imaging of tumors overexpressing RAF to noninvasively screen patients for susceptibility to targeted RAF therapy. To reduce the lipid solubility, LXH-254 was designed with triethylene glycol di(p-toluenesulfonate) (TsO-PEG3-OTs) to obtain the precursor (LXH-254-OTs) and a nucleophilic substitution reaction with 18F to obtain the tracer ([18F]F-LXH-254). [18F]F-LXH-254 exhibited good molar activity (7.16 ± 0.81 GBq/μmol), radiochemical purity (>95%), and stability. Micro-PET imaging revealed distinct radioactivity accumulation of [18F]F-LXH-254 in tumors in the imaging groups, whereas in the blocked group, the tumor radioactivity level was consistent with the background tissue, illustrating the affinity and specificity of [18F]F-LXH-254 in targeting RAF. Overall, [18F]F-LXH-254 is a promising radiotracer for screening and diagnosing patients with RAF-related disease and monitoring their treatment. This is the first attempt at using an 18F-labeled RAF-specific radiotracer.

Evaluation of HSP-27, BAP1, BRAF V600E, CCR7, and PD-L1 expression in uveal melanoma on enucleated eyes and metastatic liver tumors

BACKGROUND

The presence of metastatic disease is one of the most important factors limiting survival in patients with uveal melanoma. Studies on proteins associated with metastatic mechanisms are sparse in the literature.

METHODS

Enucleation samples from 15 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (Group 1), liver metastasectomy samples from 8 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (Group 2), and enucleation samples from 20 patients with non-metastatic uveal melanoma as controls (Group 3) were included in the study. Antibodies against heat shock protein 27 (HSP-27), BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1), C-C chemokine receptor 7 (CCR7), B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-protein kinase V600E (BRAF V600E), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) were used to detect immunoreactivity in each sample by immunohistochemical methods. Correlations between these expressed proteins and selected histopathological and clinical features, and metastatic process were investigated.

RESULTS

The frequencies of HSP-27 (median score: Group 1: 8, Group 2: 12, Group 3: 4) and BRAF V600E expressions (number of samples: Group 1: 4 (26.7%), Group 2: 1 (12.5%), Group 3: 0 (0%)), and BAP1 expression loss (number of samples : Group 1: 12 (80%), Group 2: 8 (100%), Group 3: 9 (45%)) were higher in samples from patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (Group 1 + 2) than in those from patients with non-metastatic disease (Group 3) (P = 0.001, P = 0.034, and P = 0.007, respectively). CCR7 expression (median score: Group 1: 0, Group 2: 2, Group 3: 3) was similar among these three groups (P = 0.136). No samples exhibited PD-L1 expression (P = 1.000). One-unit increases in the HSP-27 expression level and BAP1 expression loss were significantly related to 1.375- and 7.855-fold increases in the risk of metastasis, respectively (P = 0.007 and P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

HSP-27 and BAP1 are considered to be associated with metastasis, indicating these proteins as potential treatment targets in metastatic uveal melanoma.

Predictive Evaluation on Cytological Sample of Metastatic Melanoma: The Role of BRAF Immunocytochemistry in the Molecular Era

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous malignant melanoma is an aggressive neoplasm. In advanced cases, the therapeutic choice depends on the mutational status of BRAF. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNA) is often applied to the management of patients affected by melanoma, mainly for the diagnosis of metastases. The evaluation of BRAF mutational status by sequencing technique on cytological samples may be inconvenient, as it is a time and biomaterial-consuming technique. Recently, BRAF immunocytochemistry (ICC) was applied for the evaluation of BRAF V600E mutational status. Although it may be useful mainly in cytological samples, data about BRAF ICC on cytological samples are missing.

METHODS

We performed BRAF ICC on a series of 50 FNA samples of metastatic melanoma. BRAF molecular analysis was performed on the same cytological samples or on the corresponding histological samples. Molecular analysis was considered the gold standard.

RESULTS

BRAF ICC results were adequate in 49 out of 50 (98%) cases, positive in 15 out of 50 (30%) cases and negative in 34 out of 50 (68%) of cases. Overall, BRAF ICC sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value results were 88.2%, 100%, 100% and 94.1%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of BRAF ICC results was perfect when molecular evaluation was performed on the same cytological samples. Hyperpigmentation represents the main limitation of the technique.

CONCLUSIONS

BRAF ICC is a rapid, cost-effective method for detecting BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma metastases, applicable with high diagnostic performance to cytological samples. It could represent the first step to evaluate BRAF mutational status in cytological samples, mainly in poorly cellular cases.

Ultrasound-Mediated Microbubble Destruction Inhibits Skin Melanoma Growth by Affecting YAP1 Translation Using Ribosome Imprinting Sequencing

Cutaneous melanoma (CMM) is a skin tumor with a high degree of malignancy. BRAF resistance imposes great difficulty to the treatment of CMM, and partially contributes to the poor prognosis of CMM. YAP is involved in the growth and drug resistance of a variety of tumors, and mechanical signals may affect the activation of YAP1. As a novel ultrasound treatment technology, ultrasound-mediated microbubble destruction (UMMD) has been reported to have a killing effect on isolated CMM cells. In this study, the tumor tissue samples were collected from 64 CMM patients. We found that YAP1 mRNA expression was irrelevant to the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic survival of the CMM patients. The drug-resistant cell line was constructed and subcutaneously implanted into nude mice, which were further separately treated with UMMD, ultrasound (US), and microbubbles (MB). The result showed that UMMD significantly inhibited the growth of tumor tissues. Ribosome imprinting sequencing (Ribo-seq) is a genetic technology for studying protein translation at genetic level. Ribo-seq, RNA-seq, and RT-qPCR were applied to detect YAP1 expression in CMM mouse tumor tissues. Ribo-seq data revealed that UMMD greatly up-regulated the expression of YAP1, interestingly, the up-regulated YAP1 was found to be negatively correlated with the weight of tumor tissues, while no significant change in YAP1 expression was detected by RNA-seq or RT-qPCR assay. These results indicated that UMMD could inhibit the tumor growth of drug-resistant CMM by affecting the translation efficiency of YAP1, providing a strong basis for the clinical treatment of UMMD in CMM.

Point Mutation Specific Antibodies in B-Cell and T-Cell Lymphomas and Leukemias: Targeting IDH2, KRAS, BRAF and Other Biomarkers RHOA, IRF8, MYD88, ID3, NRAS, SF3B1 and EZH2

B-cell and T-cell lymphomas and leukemias often have distinct genetic mutations that are diagnostically defining or prognostically significant. A subset of these mutations consists of specific point mutations, which can be evaluated using genetic sequencing approaches or point mutation specific antibodies. Here, we describe genes harboring point mutations relevant to B-cell and T-cell malignancies and discuss the current availability of these targeted point mutation specific antibodies. We also evaluate the possibility of generating novel antibodies against known point mutations by computationally assessing for chemical and structural features as well as epitope antigenicity of these targets. Our results not only summarize several genetic mutations and identify existing point mutation specific antibodies relevant to hematologic malignancies, but also reveal potential underdeveloped targets which merit further study.

Comparison of BRAF Mutation Screening Strategies in a Large Real-Life Series of Advanced Melanoma Patients

Malignant melanoma (MM) is one of the deadliest skin cancers. BRAF mutation status plays a predominant role in the management of MM patients. The aim of this study was to compare BRAF mutational testing performed by conventional nucleotide sequencing approaches with either real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) or next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays in a real-life, hospital-based series of advanced MM patients. Consecutive patients with AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) stage IIIC and IV MM from Sardinia, Italy, who were referred for molecular testing, were enrolled into the study. Initial screening was performed to assess the mutational status of the BRAF and NRAS genes, using the conventional methodologies recognized by the nationwide guidelines, at the time of the molecular classification, required by clinicians: at the beginning, Sanger-based sequencing (SS) and, after, pyrosequencing. The present study was then focused on BRAF mutation detecting approaches only. BRAF wild-type cases with available tissue and adequate DNA were further tested with rtPCR (Idylla™) and NGS assays. Globally, 319 patients were included in the study; pathogenic BRAF mutations were found in 144 (45.1%) cases examined with initial screening. The rtPCR detected 11 (16.2%) and 3 (4.8%) additional BRAF mutations after SS and pyrosequencing, respectively. NGS detected one additional BRAF-mutated case (2.1%) among 48 wild-type cases previously tested with pyrosequencing and rtPCR. Our study evidenced that rtPCR and NGS were able to detect additional BRAF mutant cases in comparison with conventional sequencing methods; therefore, we argue for the preferential utilization of the aforementioned assays (NGS and rtPCR) in clinical practice, to eradicate false-negative cases and improve the accuracy of BRAF detection.

Immunohistochemistry as a Genetic Surrogate in Dermatopathology: Pearls and Pitfalls

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is routinely performed in most laboratories, and other than purchase of commercially available antibodies, requires no additional equipment or reagents. As such, IHC is an accessible and relatively inexpensive test and one that can be performed quite quickly. This is in sharp contrast to genomic or mutational testing methodologies that are routinely "send out" tests as they require specialized equipment and reagents as well as individuals with expertise in the performance of the tests and analysis of the results, resulting in a prolonged turn-round-time and enhanced associated costs. However, many open questions remain in a rapidly changing therapeutic and scientific landscape with most obvious one being what exactly is the utility of "good old fashioned" IHC in the age of targeted therapy? For molecular applications, is a negative immunohistochemical result enough as a stand-alone diagnostic or predictive product? Is a positive immunohistochemical result perhaps more suitable for a role in screening for molecular alterations rather than a definitive testing modality? This review is an attempt to answer those very questions. We elucidate the broad range of entities in which IHC is currently used as a molecular surrogate and underscore pearls and pitfalls associated with each. Special attention is given to entities for which targeted therapies are currently available and to entities in which molecular data is of clinical utility as a prognosticator.

Rapid BRAF mutation tests in patients with advanced melanoma: comparison of immunohistochemistry, Droplet Digital PCR, and the Idylla Mutation Platform

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

BRAF mutational testing has become a common practice in the diagnostic process of patients with advanced melanoma. Although time-consuming, DNA sequencing techniques are the current gold standard for mutational testing. However, in certain clinical situations, a rapid test result is required. In this study, the performance of three rapid BRAF mutation tests was compared. Thirty-nine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded melanoma tissue samples collected between 2007 and 2014 at a single center were included. These samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry using the anti-BRAF-V600E (VE1) mouse monocolonal antibody (BRAF-VE1 IHC), a V600E-specific Droplet Digital PCR Test, and the Idylla BRAF- Mutation Test (Idylla). Results were compared with the results of conventional BRAF mutation testing, performed using high-resolution melting analysis followed by Sanger sequencing. Next-generation sequencing was performed on samples with discordant results. The Idylla test and Droplet Digital PCR Test correctly identified all mutated and wild-type samples. BRAF-VE1 IHC showed one discordant result. The Idylla test could identify BRAF-V600 mutations other than BRAF-V600E and was the fastest and least laborious test. The Idylla Mutation Test is the most suitable test for rapid BRAF testing in clinical situations on the basis of the broad coverage of treatment-responsive mutations and the fast procedure without the need to perform a DNA isolation step.

Prognostic Role of BRAFV600E Cellular Localization in Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of cutaneous melanoma tissues harbor BRAF^V600E mutations, resulting in a constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Nuclear-cytoplasmic transport machinery is dysregulated in neoplastic cells and alters the key regulatory proteins that can lead to tumor progression and drug resistance. The significance of nuclear localization of BRAF^V600E has not been fully understood. We examined the clinical significance of intracellular localization of BRAF^V600E in cutaneous melanoma.

STUDY DESIGN

Immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF^V600E was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens of cutaneous melanoma (n = 91). Staining intensity was graded in a blinded manner. Correlations to clinical factors were analyzed by Fisher's exact test and 2-tailed t-test. Localization of BRAF^V600E was determined in melanoma cells, and we investigated their resistance to BRAF^V600E-specific inhibitor according to nuclear localization in both in vitro and in vivo models.

RESULTS

We included 91 patients, of whom 32% (29 of 91) had cytoplasmic BRAF^V600E. Nuclear BRAF^V600E was observed in 30% (27 of 91). Overall, BRAF^V600E expression correlated with TNM stage (p = 0.011), mitotic activity (p = 0.010), and ulceration (p = 0.045). Nuclear BRAF^V600E expression correlated with overall clinical stage (p < 0.001), tumor size (p < 0.001), regional lymph node (p < 0.017), depth of invasion (p = 0.005), Clark level (p < 0.001), mitotic activity (p < 0.001), ulceration (p < 0.001), and margin status (p = 0.017). On a cellular level, BRAF^V600E was identified in the nucleus, and its translocation was serum dependent. Our in vitro and in vivo data revealed sequestration of BRAF^V600E in the cytosol-sensitized resistant cells to vemurafenib; nuclear retention of BRAF^V600E was associated with aggressiveness and drug resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Nuclear localization of BRAF^V600E is associated with melanoma aggressiveness. Further multi-institutional studies are warranted to confirm the clinical relevance of nuclear localization of BRAF^V600E.

[Immunohistochemistry using clone VE1 is an economic, specific and sensitive method for detecting the presence of BRAFV600E mutations in melanoma]

BACKGROUND

Determination of BRAF mutation status is mandatory in the management of patients with inoperable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Currently, molecular biology (MB) has been validated for detecting the presence of BRAF mutations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the sensitivity, specificity and cost of immunohistochemistry (IHC) (clone VE1) versus BM methods (qPCR and Sanger sequencing).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All the samples for which BRAF mutation status was requested between March 2013 and February 2015 at the cellular and molecular analysis laboratory of the Angers Hospital were included retrospectively and consecutively. The IHC (clone VE1) and BM analyses were performed with the same formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumour samples. The cost of these two methods was determined on the basis of the cost for the French Health Insurance.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seven samples were subjected to a determination of BRAF mutational status in IHC and BM. Only one sample was discordant between these two methods (positive in IHC, negative in BM). The sensitivity and specificity of the IHC was 100% and 99.25% respectively. The ratio of the cost of IHC/BM testing was 1:2.1.

CONCLUSION

IHC (clone VE1) is a specific, sensitive and economic method for determining BRAFV600E mutation status. Nevertheless, this method must be validated in order to be integrated into a decisional algorithm, alongside BM methods, to determine whether targeted BRAF-inhibitor therapy is indicated.

BRAF V600 mutation detection in melanoma: a comparison of two laboratory testing methods

Aims

The assessment of B-raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) gene status is now standard practice in patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma with its presence predicting a clinical response to treatment with BRAF inhibitors. The gold standard in determining BRAF status is currently by DNA-based methods. More recently, a BRAF V600E antibody has been developed. We aim to investigate whether immunohistochemical detection of BRAF mutation is a suitable alternative to molecular testing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Methods

We assessed the incidence of BRAF mutation in our cohort of 132 patients, as determined by PCR, as well as examining clinical and histopathological features. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the anti-BRAF V600E VE1 clone antibody in detecting the presence of the BRAF V600E mutation in 122 cases deemed suitable for testing.

Results

The incidence of BRAF mutation in our cohort was 28.8% (38/132). Patients with the BRAF mutation were found to be significantly younger at age of diagnosis. BRAF-mutated melanomas tended to be thinner and more mitotically active. The antibody showed a sensitivity of 86.1% with a specificity of 96.9%. The positive predictive value was 96.9%; the negative predictive value was 94.4%. The concordance rate between PCR and immunohistochemical BRAF status was 95.1% (116/122).

Conclusions

The rate of BRAF mutation in our cohort (28.8%) was lower than international published rates of 40%–60%. This may reflect ethnic or geographic differences within population cohorts. The high concordance rate of PCR and immunohistochemical methods in determining BRAF status suggests that immunohistochemistry is potentially a viable, cost-effective alternative to PCR testing and suitable as a screening test for the BRAF mutation.

The use of BRAF V600E mutation-specific immunohistochemistry in pediatric Langerhans cell histiocytosis

BRAF p.V600E mutations are detected in greater than 50% of pediatric Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) lesions. However, the use of mutation-specific BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a surrogate for molecular testing in pediatric LCH is unknown. We tested the mutation-specific BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded LCH samples from 26 pediatric patients (14 males and 12 females, ages 7 mo-17 y) using allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with a limit of detection of 0.5% as the comparative gold standard. BRAF VE1 staining was scored for both intensity (0-3+) and percentage of immunoreactive tumor cells (0%-100%). BRAF VE1 immunoreactivity was determined using both lenient (≥1+, ≥1%) and stringent (≥2+, ≥10%) scoring criteria. Using lenient-scoring criteria, we found that the sensitivity and specificity of IHC compared with allele-specific real-time PCR were 100.0% and 18.2%, respectively. The poor specificity of lenient IHC analysis was attributable to weak, 1+ staining in both BRAF-mutated and wild-type LCH. Using stringent-scoring criteria, we found that specificity improved to 100.0% at the expense of sensitivity that decreased to 80.0%. Stringent scoring generated 3 false-negative results, but in all cases, neoplastic tissue comprised less than 5% of the stained section and/or the specimen was decalcified. In conclusion, highly sensitive molecular assays remain the gold standard for BRAF mutation analysis in LCH paraffin-embedded lesions. To avoid false-positive results, unequivocal VE1 staining of 2+ intensity in greater than or equal to 10% neoplastic histiocytes is required. However, negative VE1 results require additional studies to exclude false-negatives, and stringent-scoring criteria may not be optimal for scant or decalcified specimens.

Is immunohistochemistry of BRAF V600E useful as a screening tool and during progression disease of melanoma patients?

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice the gold standard method to assess BRAF status in patients with metastatic melanoma is based on molecular assays. Recently, a mutation-specific monoclonal antibody (VE1), which detects the BRAF V600E mutated protein, has been developed. With this study we aimed to confirm the clinical value of the VE1 Ventana® antibody, as today a univocal validated and accredited immunohistochemical procedure does not exist, to preliminary detect BRAF status in our routine diagnostic procedures. Moreover, we explored the biological meaning of BRAF immunohistochemical labeling both as a predictor marker of response to target therapy and, for the first time, as a player of acquired tumor drug resistance.

METHODS

We analyzed a retrospective series of 64 metastatic melanoma samples, previously investigated for molecular BRAF status, using a fully automatized immunohistochemical method. We correlated the data to the clinicopathologic characteristics of patients and their clinical outcome.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and the specificity of the Ventana® VE1 antibody were 89.2 and 96.2% respectively, while the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 97.1 and 86.2%, respectively. For six mutated patients the histological sample before treatment and when disease progressed was available. The immunohistochemical BRAF V600E expression in the specimens when disease progressed was less intense and more heterogeneous compared to the basal expression. Multivariate analysis revealed that a less intense grade of positive expression is an independent predictor of a less aggressive stage at diagnosis (p = 0.0413).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings encourage the introduction of immunohistochemistry as a rapid screening tool for the assessment of BRAF status in melanoma patients in routine diagnostic procedures and prepare the ground for other studies to highlight the role of immunohistochemical BRAF V600E expression in patients at the time of progression.

A comparison of immunohistochemical and molecular methods used for analyzing the BRAF V600E gene mutation in malignant melanoma in Taiwan

AIMS

The BRAF V600 mutation has been shown to be clinically meaningful in terms of both the prognosis and sensitivity of BRAF inhibitors in patients with metastatic melanoma. Recently, a BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody, VE1, was generated for the detection of tumors bearing BRAF V600E mutations. To determine the clinical value of immunohistochemical testing, we compared the prevalence of mutant BRAF detected by VE1 with direct sequencing results.

METHODS

Paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed melanoma biopsies were analyzed for the BRAF mutation status by immunohistochemistry with the VE1 antibody. Sanger sequencing was applied to verify the immunohistochemical results.

RESULTS

A total of 73 melanoma cases with tumor samples from primary lymph nodes and metastatic sites were selected for this study. Direct sequencing demonstrated that 18 of 73 cases (24.6%) harbored the BRAF V600 mutation: 17 with V600E and one with V600K. All 18 tumors shown to harbor the BRAF V600E/K mutations were VE1-positive. One additional case was false-positive for VE1. The sensitivity and specificity of VE1 was 100% (18/18) and 98% (54/55), respectively. The overall concordance between the immunohistochemical method and direct sequencing was excellent (98.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that immunohistochemical analysis using VE1 constitutes a highly sensitive test for the detection of BRAF mutations and suggest that this cost-effective method is suitable as a rapid diagnostic approach complementary to molecular testing.

Immunohistochemistry as a reliable method for detection of BRAF-V600E mutation in melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current published literature

BACKGROUND

The BRAF-V600E mutation is associated with tumor aggressiveness and poor prognosis in melanoma patients. Identification of this mutation is clinically important as we now have Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, such as BRAF and MEK inhibitors, which have been shown to retard disease progression in these patients. Detection of BRAF-V600E by genetic analysis using polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard method for melanoma cases. However, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using a VE1 antibody is rapidly emerging as a trustworthy method for the determination of mutation status in patients' specimens. Our objective in this study was to assess the reliability of IHC compared with genetic methods for successful identification of BRAF-V600E mutation in melanoma tissue specimens.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for studies comparing IHC with genetic analysis for the detection of BRAF in melanoma patients published through May 28, 2015. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive, and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using a bivariate model. Logit estimates of sensitivity and specificity with their respective variances were used to plot a hierarchical receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q- and I-squared statistics.

RESULTS

An initial literature search resulted in 287 articles. After two independent reviews and consensus-based discussion to resolve disparities, 21 studies involving a total of 1687 cases met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity of IHC for BRAF-V600E detection was 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI, 0.94-0.98), specificity 1.00; 95% CI (0.97-1.00), positive likelihood ratio 194.2; 95% CI (37.6-1003.3), negative likelihood ratio 0.04; 95% CI (0.02-0.07), and diagnostic odds ratio 5503 (1199-25,263), as compared with genetic analysis. A high heterogeneity was observed between these studies (Q value of 40.17 & I(2) = 95%; 95% CI (91-99, P < 0.001) which may be explained by studies using different cutoff values for labeling IHC as positive. High accuracy of IHC was depicted by area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve which was 0.99; 95 % CI (0.98-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis demonstrates that IHC is highly sensitive and specific for the detection of BRAF-V600E in melanoma cases. IHC is likely to be useful in BRAF mutation detection because it is highly comparable with the genetic methods. Any negative or low staining cases may be selected to undergo genetic analysis based on other clinical and histopathologic features.

NRAS (Q61R), BRAF (V600E) immunohistochemistry: a concomitant tool for mutation screening in melanomas

Background

The determination of NRAS and BRAF mutation status is a major requirement in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. Mutation specific antibodies against NRAS^Q61R and BRAF^V600E proteins could offer additional data on tumor heterogeneity. The specificity and sensitivity of NRAS^Q61R immunohistochemistry have recently been reported excellent. We aimed to determine the utility of immunohistochemistry using SP174 anti-NRAS^Q61R and VE1 anti-BRAF^V600E antibodies in the theranostic mutation screening of melanomas.

Methods

142 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded melanoma samples from 79 patients were analyzed using pyrosequencing and immunohistochemistry.

Results

23 and 26 patients were concluded to have a NRAS-mutated or a BRAF-mutated melanoma respectively. The 23 NRAS^Q61R and 23 BRAF^V600E-mutant samples with pyrosequencing were all positive in immunohistochemistry with SP174 antibody and VE1 antibody respectively, without any false negative. Proportions and intensities of staining were varied. Other NRAS^Q61L, NRAS^Q61K, BRAF^V600K and BRAF^V600R mutants were negative in immunohistochemistry. 6 single cases were immunostained but identified as wild-type using pyrosequencing (1 with SP174 and 5 with VE1). 4/38 patients with multiple samples presented molecular discordant data. Technical limitations are discussed to explain those discrepancies. Anyway we could not rule out real tumor heterogeneity.

Conclusions

In our study, we showed that combining immunohistochemistry analysis targeting NRAS^Q61R and BRAF^V600E proteins with molecular analysis was a reliable theranostic tool to face challenging samples of melanoma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13000-015-0359-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Metaanalysis of BRAF mutations and clinicopathologic characteristics in primary melanoma

BACKGROUND

BRAF mutations occur in some melanomas. We hypothesized that BRAF mutation rates may differ in melanomas found in Asian compared to white populations.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a metaanalysis of BRAF mutations and their associations with the clinicopathologic characteristics of primary melanoma (PM), with a subgroup analysis to compare Asian and white patients with PM.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to November 2013. The incidence rates and odds ratios (ORs) of BRAF mutations were calculated using a fixed or random effects model.

RESULTS

BRAF mutation was associated with younger age (OR = 1.734; P < .001), trunk location (OR = 2.272; P < .001), non-chronically sun damaged skin (OR = 2.833; P < .001), superficial spreading melanoma (OR = 2.081; P < .001), and advanced melanoma stage (OR = 1.551; P = .003). The incidence of BRAF mutations in Asian patients with PM was half that of white patients with PM, but it was linked to the same clinicopathologic characteristics.

LIMITATIONS

Only a small number of studies have been conducted on Asian patients with PMs.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRAF mutation in PM was associated with age, anatomic site based on ultraviolet radiation exposure, histologic subtype, and advanced stage of melanoma. The clinicopathologic associations with BRAF mutations were similar in Asian and white patients with PM.

Utility of BRAF V600E Immunohistochemistry Expression Pattern as a Surrogate of BRAF Mutation Status in 154 Patients with Advanced Melanoma

Successful BRAF inhibitor therapy depends on the accurate assessment of the mutation status of the BRAF V600 residue in tissue samples. In melanoma, immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis with monoclonal anti-BRAF V600E has emerged as a sensitive and specific surrogate of BRAF V600E mutation, particularly when BRAF V600E protein expression is homogeneous and strong. A subset of melanomas exhibit heterogeneous labeling for BRAF V600E, but our understanding of the significance of heterogeneous BRAF V600E IHC expression is limited. We used next-generation sequencing to compare BRAF V600E IHC staining patterns in 154 melanomas: 79 BRAF(WT) and 75 BRAF (including 53 V600E) mutants. Agreement among dermatopathologists on tumor morphology, IHC expression, and intensity was excellent (ρ = 0.99). A predominantly epithelioid cell phenotype significantly correlated with the BRAF V600E mutation (P = .0085). Tumors demonstrating either heterogeneous or homogeneous IHC expression were significantly associated with the BRAF V600E mutation (P < .0001), as was increased intensity of staining (P < .0001). The positive predictive value was 98% for homogenous IHC expression compared with 70% for heterogeneous labeling. Inclusion of both heterogeneous and homogeneous BRAF V600E IHC expression as a positive test significantly improved IHC test sensitivity from 85% to 98%. However, this reduced BRAF V600E IHC test specificity from 99% to 96%. Cautious evaluation of heterogeneous BRAF V600E IHC expression is warranted and comparison with sequencing results is critical, given its reduced test specificity and positive predictive value for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation.

Immunohistochemistry in dermatopathology

CONTEXT

Immunohistochemistry is not a diagnostic test but a highly valuable tool that requires interpretation within a context.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current status and limitations of immunohistochemistry in dermatopathology.

DATA SOURCES

English-language literature published between 1980 and 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Although immunohistochemistry is rarely completely specific or sensitive, it is an important adjunctive technique in dermatopathology and can be helpful in a series of diagnostic dilemmas.

Immunohistochemistry is highly sensitive and specific for the detection of NRASQ61R mutation in melanoma

Testing for NRAS is now integral part in the assessment of metastatic melanoma patients because there is evidence that NRAS-mutated patients may be sensitive to MEK inhibitors, and RAS mutation is a common mechanism of acquired resistance during treatment with BRAF inhibitors. This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical analysis using an N-Ras (Q61R) antibody to detect the presence of the NRASQ61R mutation in melanoma patients. A total of 98 primary cutaneous melanomas that have undergone examination of NRAS mutation were retrieved from a multicentric database. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded melanoma tissues were analyzed for BRAF and NRAS mutations by independent, blinded observers using both conventional DNA molecular techniques and immunohistochemistry with the novel anti-human N-Ras (Q61R) monoclonal antibody (clone SP174). The antibody showed a sensitivity of 100% (14/14) and a specificity of 100% (83/83) for detecting the presence of an NRASQ61R mutation. Of the NRAS-mutated cases, none of the non-Q61R cases stained positive with the antibody (0/7). There were three cases with discordant NRAS mutational results. Additional molecular analysis confirmed the immunohistochemically obtained NRAS result in all cases, suggesting that a multiple analytical approach can be required to reach the correct sample classification. The reported immunohistochemical method is an accurate, rapid, and cost-effective method for detecting NRASQ61R mutation in melanoma patients, and represents a valuable supplement to traditional mutation testing. If validated in further studies, genetic testing would only be required for immunohistochemistry-negative patients to detect non-Q61R mutations.

BRAF V600E mutational status in bile duct adenomas and hamartomas

AIMS

Bile duct adenomas (BDA) and bile duct hamartomas (BDH) are benign bile duct lesions considered neoplastic or secondary to ductal plate malformation, respectively. We have reported previously a high prevalence of BRAF V600E mutations detected by allele-specific polymerase chain reaction assay in BDA, and suggested that BDA may be precursors to a subset of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas harbouring V600E mutations. The aim of the present study was to assess the existence of BRAF V600E mutations, using immunohistochemical methods, in additional BDA as well as in BDH.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifteen BDA and 35 BDH were retrieved from the archives of the pathology departments of two French university hospitals. All cases were reviewed by two pathologists specialized in liver diseases. BRAF V600E mutational status was investigated by immunohistochemistry. Mutated BRAF mutant protein was detected in 53% of the BDA and in none of the cases of BDH.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that BDA and BDH are different processes, and that BDA represent true benign neoplasms. They also support the hypothesis that mutated BDA might precede the development of the subset of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas harbouring BRAF V600E mutations.

BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody: A review

The significance of BRAF mutations in neoplasia was first recognized in 2002 when mutations were discovered in a broad range of cancers. Numerous subsequent studies expanded our understanding of BRAF V600E as a critical diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarker in many cancers. Additionally, the advent of small-molecule inhibitors of BRAF V600E rendered assessment of BRAF mutation status essential in tumors such as melanoma. In clinical practice, evaluation of BRAF mutation status has routinely been performed by DNA-based assays utilizing polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, molecular testing is not available at many hospitals since it is time-consuming, expensive, and requires expertise in molecular techniques. The first BRAF V600E-specific antibody was reported in 2011 (clone VE1). A purified version of this antibody as well as a second monoclonal antibody targeted to BRAF V600E is now commercially available. In this review, clinicopathologic characteristics associated with BRAF-mutant tumors will be highlighted, and the prognostic and predictive implications of a BRAF V600E mutation will be discussed with a focus on melanoma, thyroid carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma. Additionally, we will review the correlation between immunohistochemistry and molecular results and deliberate how BRAF immunohistochemistry might be utilized in the evaluation of these tumors.

Microvessel density, lymphovascular density, and lymphovascular invasion in primary cutaneous melanoma-correlation with histopathologic prognosticators and BRAF status

The relationship between microvessel density (MVD), lymphovascular density (LVD), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) remains unclear. Given this, a total of 102 PCMs were assessed for MVD (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 and Endocan), LVD (D2-40), and LVI (immunostaining with D2-40/S-100 and hematoxylin and eosin); tumoral S-100A13, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, and Endocan; and BRAF status. LVD was associated with MVD (P = .01). MVD was higher in PCMs with depth greater than or equal to 2 mm and ulceration (P = .04, .05), whereas LVD was higher in PCMs with depth greater than or equal to 2 mm and mitoses (P = .03, .02). After adjusting for MVD and LVD, only ulceration was associated with LVI (P < .02). A BRAF mutation was seen in 30.4% cases, and when present, both LVD and host response (P = .0008 and .04, respectively) were significantly associated with MVD. Immunostaining with S-100A13 was noted in 99% of cases and a significant association noted only with ulceration (P = .05). Immunostaining increased LVI positivity (46.5% versus 4.9% by hematoxylin and eosin, P < .0001). MVD and LVD are not associated with LVI, appear to be closely related with each other, and are associated with select markers of poor prognosticative value. The association between a host response and LVD and MVD in PCMs with a BRAF mutation suggests that they exhibit potential for strategizing immunotherapies.

Accurate detection of BRAF p.V600E mutations in challenging melanoma specimens requires stringent immunohistochemistry scoring criteria or sensitive molecular assays

Malignant melanoma patients require BRAF mutation testing prior to initiating BRAF inhibitor therapy. Molecular testing remains the diagnostic gold standard, but recent work suggests that BRAF immunohistochemistry (IHC) confers comparable results. Sample attributes and scoring criteria that may affect BRAF IHC interpretation, however, are poorly defined. We investigated formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples with variable challenging interpretative attributes: metastases, core needle biopsies, sample tissues less than 60 mm(2), samples with greater than 50% necrosis, and/or samples with greater than 10% melanin pigmentation. Three pathologists independently scored 122 BRAF V600E IHC-labeled melanoma samples for percentage (0%-100%) of staining intensity (0-3+). Interscorer BRAF IHC discrepancies were resolved by consensus review. Lenient (≥1+, >0%) and stringent (≥2+, ≥10%) IHC scoring criteria were compared to BRAF V600 mutation (cobas) results (n = 118). Specimens with greater than 10% melanin pigmentation and metastatic samples produced the majority of interobserver IHC and IHC/cobas scoring discrepancies. Consensus review using stringent scoring criteria decreased the number of discrepant results, yielded very good interobserver reproducibility, and improved specificity and positive predictive value for BRAF p.V600E detection. BRAF p.V600K mutations accounted for 57.1% of false-negative IHC results when stringent, consensus criteria scoring were used. The cobas test detected 75.0% (8/12) of BRAF IHC-negative BRAF p.V600K mutations confirmed by next-generation sequencing. Molecular BRAF testing is the preferred screening test for BRAF inhibitor therapy eligibility because of superior sensitivity in challenging interpretative melanoma specimens. However, BRAF V600E IHC has excellent specificity and positive predictive value when stringent, consensus scoring criteria are implemented. To decrease IHC scoring discrepancies, pathologists should interpret metastatic and pigmented samples with caution.

Diagnostic value of immunohistochemistry for the detection of the BRAF(V600E) mutation in papillary thyroid carcinoma: comparative analysis with three DNA-based assays

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the detection of BRAF(V600E) by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using a mutation-specific antibody with molecular biology methods for evaluation of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study concerned 198 consecutive conventional PTC patients, of which the majority were women (133/198; 67%), with a mean age of 56 years (range 19-79 years). BRAF mutation analysis was performed using DNA-based (direct sequencing, pyrosequencing, and SNaPshot) and IHC (VE1 antibody) methods. The sensitivity and specificity of IHC for BRAF(V600E) was compared with the molecular biology data.

RESULTS

A BRAF mutational result was obtained in 194 cases. A BRAF(V600E) mutation was detected in 153/194 (79%) cases of PTC when using at least one molecular method, and in 151/194 (78%) cases with IHC. No false positive results were noted using IHC to detect the BRAF(V600E) mutation. Besides this mutation, other rare BRAF mutations (BRAF(V600K) and BRAF(K601E)), used as negative controls, were consistently negative with IHC. The sensitivity and specificity of IHC for the detection of this mutation were 98.7% and 100% respectively. The IHC test demonstrated excellent performance at a level equivalent to two DNA-based counterparts (pyrosequencing and SNaPshot). Failure to achieve a result was more frequent with the direct sequencing method than with the three other methods.

CONCLUSION

IHC using the VE1 antibody is a specific and sensitive method for the detection of the BRAF(V600E) mutation in PTC. IHC may be an alternative to molecular biology approaches for the routine detection of this mutation in PTC patients.

Tumor homogeneity between primary and metastatic sites for BRAF status in metastatic melanoma determined by immunohistochemical and molecular testing

BRAF inhibitors have demonstrated improvement of overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF^V600 mutations. In order to evaluate BRAF tumor heterogeneity between primary and metastatic site, we have evaluated the performance of immunohistochemistry (IHC) with an anti-BRAF^V600E antibody in both localization by comparison with high resolution melting analysis followed by Sanger sequencing in a parallel blinded study. A total of 230 samples distributed as primary melanoma (n = 88) and different types of metastatic samples (n = 142) were studied in 99 patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma (stage III or IV). The prevalence of each BRAF mutation was c.1799T>A, BRAF^V600E (45.2%), c.1799_1800TG>AA, BRAF^V600E2 (3.0%), c.1798_1799GT>AA, BRAF^V600K (3.0%), c.1801 A>G, BRAF^K601E (1.3%), c.1789_1790CT>TC, BRAF^L597S (0.4%), c.1780G>A, BRAF^D594N (0.9%) respectively. IHC was positive in 109/112 samples harboring BRAF^V600E/E2 mutations and negative in other cases. The cytoplasmic staining was either strongly positive in tumor cells of BRAF^V600E mutated cases. It appeared strong brown, different from the vesicular grey cytoplasmic pigmentation of melanophages. Concordance between the two techniques was 96.4%. Sensitivity of IHC for detecting the BRAF^V600E/E2 mutations was 97.3%, while specificity was 100%. Both our IHC and molecular study demonstrated homogeneity between primary and metastatic sites for BRAF status in melanoma. This study also provides evidence that IHC may be a cost-effective first-line method for BRAF^V600E detection. Thereafter, molecular techniques should be used in negative, ambiguous or non-contributive cases.

Ras, Raf, and MAP kinase in melanoma

A growing understanding of the biology and molecular mechanisms of melanoma has led to the identification of a number of driver mutations for this aggressive tumor. The most common mutations affect signaling of the Ras/Raf/MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) pathway. This review will focus on mutations in genes encoding proteins that play a role in the MAPK pathway and that have been implicated in melanoma biology, such as BRAF, NRAS, and MEK (MAPK kinase), and detail the current understanding of their role in melanoma progression from a molecular biology perspective. Furthermore, this review will also consider some additional mutations in genes such as KIT, GNAQ, and GNA11, which can be seen in certain subtypes of melanoma and whose gene products interact with the MAPK pathway. In addition, the association of these molecular changes with clinical and classical histopathologic characteristics of melanoma will be outlined and their role in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions discussed. Finally, a basic overview of the current targeted therapy landscape, as far as relevant to the pathologist, will be provided.

Immunohistochemistry is highly sensitive and specific for detection of BRAF V600E mutation in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma

Background

High frequencies of the BRAF V600E mutation have been reported in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA). Recently, a BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody has been developed and validated. We evaluated the immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of BRAF V600E mutation in PXA by comparing to gold standard molecular analysis and investigating the interobserver variability of the IHC scoring. We performed BRAF V600E IHC in 46 cases, of which 37 (80%) cases had sufficient tumor tissue for molecular analysis. IHC detection was performed using monoclonal mouse antibody VE1 (Spring Bioscience). IHC slides were scored independently by four reviewers blind to molecular data, including a primary (gold standard) and three additional reviewers. BRAF V600E mutation status was assessed by allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with fragment analysis.

Results

All 46 cases showed interpretable BRAF V600E IHC results: 27 (59%) were positive (strong cytoplasmic staining), 19 (41%) were negative (6 of these cases with focal/diffuse weak cytoplasmic staining, interpreted as nonspecific by the primary reviewer). By molecular analysis, all 37 cases that could be tested had evaluable results: 22 (59%) cases were positive for BRAF V600E mutation and were scored as “IHC-positive”, and 15 (41%) were negative (including 11 cases scored as “IHC-negative” and 4 cases scored as negative with minimal nonspecific staining). IHC detection of BRAF V600E mutant protein was congruent in all 37 cases that were successfully evaluated by molecular testing (sensitivity and specificity of 100%). Agreement for IHC scoring among the 4 reviewers was almost perfect (kappa 0.92) when cases were scored as “positive/negative” and substantial (kappa 0.78) when minimal nonspecific staining was taken into account.

Conclusions

We conclude that detection of BRAF V600E mutation by immunohistochemistry is highly sensitive and specific. BRAF V600E IHC interpretation is usually straightforward, but awareness of possible nonspecific staining is necessary and training is recommended. It is a practical rapid method that may avoid the need of labor-intensive molecular testing and may be most valuable in small biopsies unsuitable for molecular analysis.

Mutation-specific antibody detects mutant BRAFV600E protein expression in human colon carcinomas

BACKGROUND

A point mutation (V600E) in the BRAF oncogene is a prognostic biomarker and may predict for nonresponse to anti-EGFR antibody therapy in patients with colorectal carcinoma. BRAFV600E mutations are frequently detected in tumors with microsatellite instability and indicate a sporadic origin. We used a mutation-specific antibody to examine mutant BRAFV600E protein expression and its concordance with BRAFV600E mutation data.

METHODS

Primary stage III colon carcinomas were analyzed for BRAFV600E mutations in exon 15, and 50 BRAFV600E mutation carriers and 25 wild-type tumors were selected for analysis of BRAF proteins by immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC was performed in archival tissue specimens using a pan-BRAF antibody and a mutation-specific antibody against BRAFV600E proteins. Staining was scored by 2 pathologists who were blinded to clinical and mutation data.

RESULTS

Using a pan-BRAF antibody, total BRAF protein expression was observed in the tumor cell cytoplasm in 74 of 75 colon carcinomas. A mutation-specific antibody identified diffuse cytoplasmic staining of mutant BRAFV600E proteins in 49 of 74 cancers. Analysis using a polymerase chain reaction-based assay revealed that all 49 of these cancers carried BRAFV600E mutations. In contrast, BRAFV600E staining was absent in all 25 tumors that carried wild-type copies of BRAF.

CONCLUSIONS

A BRAF mutation-specific (V600E) antibody detected tumors with BRAFV600E mutations and exhibited complete concordance with a DNA-based method. These results support the use of IHC as a simplified strategy to screen colorectal cancers for BRAFV600E mutations in clinical practice.

Rare BRAF mutations in melanoma patients: implications for molecular testing in clinical practice

Background:

The detection of V600E BRAF mutation in melanoma is fundamental since here BRAF inhibitors represent an effective treatment. Non-V600E BRAF mutations that may also respond are not detected by certain screening methods. Thus, knowledge about detection of these mutations is needed.

Methods:

A total of 276 tumour samples from 174 melanoma patients were investigated for BRAF mutations by pyrosequencing. Rare mutations were confirmed by capillary sequencing and compared with findings from COBAS test and immunohistochemistry using a novel BRAF antibody. Melanoma type, localisation, and survival were summarised.

Results:

BRAF mutations were found in 43% of patients (124 tumours in 75 patients). Among those, 14 patients (18.7%) exhibited rare mutations. The V600EK601del and V600DK601del mutations have never been described before in melanoma. Furthermore, V600K, V600E2, and V600D, V600G, V600R, and L597S mutations were detected. Mutations were not detected by COBAS test in 7 out of these 14 patients and immunohistochemistry only reliably detected patients with the V600E2 and V600EK601del mutation.

Conclusion:

Accurate diagnosis of rare BRAF mutations is crucial. We show that pyrosequencing is accurate, highly sensitive, reliable, and time saving to detect rare BRAF mutations. Missing these rare variant mutations would exclude a subset of patients from available effective BRAF-targeting therapy.