Rapid but nondurable response of a BRAF exon 15 double-mutated spindle cell sarcoma to a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

BRAF V600E substitution predicts sensitivity of a cancer to BRAF inhibitor therapy. The mutation is rarely found in soft-tissue sarcomas. Here we describe a case of undifferentiated spindle cell sarcoma showing primary insensitivity to standard chemotherapy and pronounced but non-sustained response to BRAF/MEK inhibitors at recurrence.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 13-year-old girl was diagnosed with low-grade spindle cell sarcoma of pelvic localization, BRAF exon 15 double-mutated: c.1799T>A p.V600E and c.1819T>A p.S607T in cis-position. The tumor showed resistance to CWS-based first-line chemotherapy and was treated surgically by radical resection. Seven months after surgery the patient developed metastatic relapse with abdominal carcinomatosis. Combined targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors afforded complete response in 1 month and was continued, though complicated by severe side effects (fever, rash) necessitating 1-2 week toxicity breaks. After 4 months from commencement the disease recurred and anti-BRAF/MEK regimen consolidation was unsuccessful. Intensive salvation chemotherapy was ineffective. Empirical immunotherapy afforded a transient partial response giving way to fatal progression with massive, abdominal cocoon-complicated peritoneal carcinomatosis.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of spindle cell sarcoma BRAF V600E/S607T double-mutated, responding to a combination of B-Raf and MEK inhibitors. Despite the low histological grade and radical surgical treatment of the tumor at primary manifestation, the disease had aggressive clinical course and the response to BRAF/MEK targeted therapy at recurrence was complete but nondurable. Empirical use of pembrolizumab provided no unambiguous evidence on the clinical relevance of immunotherapy in protein kinase -rearranged spindle cell tumors.

Metastatic Undifferentiated Melanoma Mimicking a Primary Bone Tumor: A Potential Diagnostic Pitfall

ABSTRACT

Undifferentiated melanoma (UM) is defined by the loss of classic morphologic and immunohistochemical melanocytic markers. Reports in the literature are rare and show that UM usually occurs as a metastasis in the setting of a known primary cutaneous melanoma. The most common mutations in UM include those involving BRAF , NRAS , and KIT , which are almost invariably present in the parent melanoma. In this study, we report a case of a primary sinonasal melanoma with metastatic UM presenting with osteoclast-like giant cells and resembling a primary bone tumor. The retention of an unusual KRAS mutation in UM that was also present in the primary lesion provided critical information for the diagnosis. Our report highlights the importance of considering mutational analysis to identify undifferentiated melanomas in patients with metastatic tumors which do not have the typical histopathologic and immunohistochemical features of melanoma.

PRAME Expression Is a Useful Tool in the Diagnosis of Primary and Metastatic Dedifferentiated and Undifferentiated Melanoma

Although mostly recognized in the metastatic setting dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas are increasingly recognized as cutaneous and, less commonly, mucosal primary tumors. Their diagnosis is challenging and dependent on sampling and recognition of a conventional melanoma precursor and/or detection of a mutation in a conventional melanoma driver gene. PRAME immunohistochemistry has recently become an important ancillary tool in the separation of melanoma from benign nevi, but no comprehensive studies exist regarding its value in the detection of dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas and their separation from atypical fibroxanthoma and pleomorphic dermal sarcoma, the main differential diagnoses on sun-damaged skin. After retrieval from archival files, we performed PRAME immunohistochemistry on 11 primary and 10 metastatic dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas, 11 atypical fibroxanthomas, and 10 pleomorphic dermal sarcomas. Nuclear staining was assigned extent (ranging from 0 to 4 and reflecting the percentage of PRAME-positive tumor nuclei) and intensity scores (graded as absent, weak, moderate, and strong, with assigned scores ranging from 0 to 3) with combined scores ranging from 0 to 7. Both primary and metastatic dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas showed strong and diffuse nuclear PRAME staining with median combined scores of 7. Strong and diffuse staining was also seen in all conventional melanoma precursors except for desmoplastic melanoma. In contrast, PRAME staining in atypical fibroxanthoma and pleomorphic dermal sarcoma was patchy and weak with median combined scores of 2. Our data emphasize the diagnostic utility of PRAME staining as a first screening tool in the detection and workup of dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas, both in the primary and metastatic settings. PRAME immunohistochemistry is particularly helpful as it is also positive in tumors without a recognizable conventional melanoma precursor and in those associated with desmoplastic melanomas, where PRAME is typically found to be negative.

Utility of sequencing for ATP6AP1 and ATP6AP2 to distinguish between atypical granular cell tumor with junctional component and melanoma

BACKGROUND

Granular cell tumor (GCT) is a S100+ neoplasm with atypical and malignant variants. Similar to melanocytic neoplasms, the tumors make nests and can have junctional components raising a differential diagnosis of melanoma. Nevi and melanomas may also have granular cell cytoplasm. MelanA is useful in distinguishing melanocytic from granular cell lineage, but increasingly MelanA/SOX10 negative melanomas have been recognized by correlation with molecular methods.

METHODS

We encountered several cases with morphologic overlap between melanoma and atypical GCT necessitating additional molecular workup. We sequenced two cases and searched our archive for similar cases of GCT with overlapping features of melanocytic lineage.

RESULTS

In our two index cases, we excluded melanoma driver mutations and identified frameshift or premature stop codons in ATP6AP1/2 pathognomonic of granular cell lineage. Data retrieved from Cosmic identified 24 melanomas with missense single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in ATP6AP1 but no frameshift or premature stop codons. Twenty-one melanomas had missense SNVs in ATP6AP2. One melanoma had a premature stop codon in ATP6AP2, but this lesion also had a melanoma-associated driver mutation NRASQ61K. We found 1 of 23 additional cases of GCT in our archives with a junctional component and no additional cases with maturation.

CONCLUSIONS

Atypical and malignant GCT can have histopathologic overlap with melanoma. Frameshift and premature stop codons in ATP6AP1/2 are specific for granular cell lineage, and capable of excluding melanoma, in the absence of known melanoma-associated driver mutations.

Dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas: a practical approach to a challenging diagnosis

Dedifferentiation, defined as the loss of cellular features of terminal differentiation resulting in a more primitive, unspecialized phenotype, is a rare phenomenon in melanoma and more commonly observed in the metastatic setting than in primary melanomas. The diagnosis of dedifferentiated melanoma poses a significant challenge, and the tumors need to be carefully sampled and worked up to identify any residual morphologic, immunohistochemical, or molecular evidence of their melanocytic lineage. This article reviews our current knowledge of the clinical, histopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features of these rare tumors and provides a practical diagnostic approach and discussion of the relevant differential diagnoses and associated diagnostic pitfalls.

Undifferentiated and Dedifferentiated Metastatic Melanomas Masquerading as Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Mutational Signature Analysis and Immunotherapy Response

The distinction between undifferentiated melanoma (UM) or dedifferentiated melanoma (DM) from undifferentiated or unclassifiable sarcoma can be difficult and requires the careful correlation of clinical, pathologic, and genomic findings. In this study, we examined the utility of mutational signatures to identify patients with UM/DM with particular attention as to whether this distinction matters for treatment because the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma has dramatically improved with immunologic therapy, whereas durable responses are less frequent in sarcomas. We identified 19 cases of UM/DM that were initially reported as unclassified or undifferentiated malignant neoplasm or sarcoma and submitted for targeted next-generation sequencing analysis. These cases were confirmed as UM/DM by harboring melanoma driver mutations, UV signature, and high tumor mutation burden. One case of DM showed melanoma in situ. Meanwhile, 18 cases represented metastatic UM/DM. Eleven patients had a prior history of melanoma. Thirteen of 19 (68%) of the tumors were immunohistochemically completely negative for 4 melanocytic markers (S100, SOX10, HMB45, and MELAN-A). All cases harbored a dominant UV signature. Frequent driver mutations involved BRAF (26%), NRAS (32%), and NF1 (42%). In contrast, the control cohort of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas (UPS) of deep soft tissue exhibited a dominant aging signature in 46.6% (7/15) without evidence of UV signature. The median tumor mutation burden for DM/UM vs UPS was 31.5 vs 7.0 mutations/Mb (P < .001). A favorable response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was observed in 66.6% (12/18) of patients with UM/DM. Eight patients exhibited a complete response and were alive with no evidence of disease at the last follow-up (median 45.5 months). Our findings support the usefulness of the UV signature in discriminating DM/UM vs UPS. Furthermore, we present evidence suggesting that patients with DM/UM and UV signatures can benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Clinical, histopathological and molecular features of dedifferentiated melanomas: An EORTC Melanoma Group Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

Dedifferentiated melanoma (DedM) poses significant diagnostic challenges. We aimed to investigate the clinical, histopathological and molecular features of DedM. Methylation signature (MS) and copy number profiling (CNP) were carried out in a subgroup of cases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective series of 78 DedM tissue samples from 61 patients retrieved from EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) Melanoma Group centres were centrally reviewed. Clinical and histopathological features were retrieved. In a subgroup of patients, genotyping through Infinium Methylation microarray and CNP analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Most patients (60/61) had a metastatic DedM showing most frequently an unclassified pleomorphic, spindle cell, or small round cell morphology akin to undifferentiated soft tissue sarcoma, rarely associated with heterologous elements. Overall, among 20 successfully analysed tissue samples from 16 patients, we found retained melanoma-like MS in only 7 tissue samples while a non-melanoma-like MS was observed in 13 tissue samples. In two patients from whom multiple specimens were analysed, some of the samples had a preserved cutaneous melanoma MS while other specimens exhibited an epigenetic shift towards a mesenchymal/sarcoma-like profile, matching the histological features. In these two patients, CNP was largely identical across all analysed specimens, in line with their common clonal origin, despite significant modification of their epigenome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study further highlights that DedM represents a real diagnostic challenge. While MS and genomic CNP may help pathologists to diagnose DedM, we provide proof-of-concept that dedifferentiation in melanoma is frequently associated with epigenetic modifications.

Metastatic melanoma involving a genetically confirmed angiofibroma of soft tissue: A previously unreported type of tumor-to-tumor metastasis

Tumor-to-tumor metastases are an uncommon phenomenon and are very rare in the context of malignant melanoma. This case report describes a 73-year-old male who underwent an excision of a melanoma from his forehead. Six months later, he developed metastatic disease, including metastasis to a genetically confirmed angiofibroma of soft tissue of the abdominal wall. Angiofibroma of soft tissue is a relatively recently described benign fibrovascular soft tissue tumor, and there appear to be no previous reports of it being a recipient tumor for a metastasis. Awareness of the phenomenon of tumor-to-tumor metastasis and of the distinctive morphologic and molecular genetic features of angiofibroma are critical to avoid misdiagnosis of this very rare event as "dedifferentiated" melanoma.

Melanoma cell plasticity poses diagnostic challenges: a case series

Phenotype switching is an emerging concept in melanoma research and deals with the cancer cell plasticity. In this paper, we present five cases of patients with metastatic malignant melanoma where the tumor underwent dramatic morphological and immunohistochemical changes thereby mimicking other types of malignancies. The diagnosis of melanoma in all these cases was based on the mutational profile of the tumor assessed by next-generation sequencing compared to the primary lesion or local regional lymph nodes. These cases highlight the importance of thorough diagnostic measures in patients with metastatic melanoma who show progressive disease and where basic pathological assessment shows a diagnostic discrepancy.

A Case of Dedifferentiated Melanoma With Lymph Node Metastasis Where Molecular Biological Tests Were Useful for Diagnosis

Malignant melanoma is known to have an altered phenotype and loss of differentiation markers for melanoma due to metastasis. Here, we report a case in which the expression of the immunohistochemical markers for melanoma was changed due to lymph node metastasis of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. The patient, a male in his 60s, was diagnosed with malignant melanoma after undergoing excision of a skin mass. The additional excision specimen showed a small number of tumor cell clusters infiltrating the dermis. The biopsied lymph node showed completely different histological findings from those of the skin lesion and consisted of spindle-shaped tumor cells. An immunohistochemical study revealed no significant positive reactions in the lymph node tissue indicative of melanoma. The additional genetic study revealed BRAF V600e mutations in both the primary tumor and a lymph node. Together with the histological findings, the diagnosis was of metastasis of dedifferentiated melanoma to a lymph node. In summary, there is a risk of underestimation or misdiagnosis of melanoma as undifferentiated sarcoma or other tumors when melanoma metastasizes to lymph nodes and findings show a dedifferentiated or undifferentiated tumor. Therefore, as in this case, it is necessary to add a genetic study in order to make a comprehensive judgment.

Spindle Cell Tumors of the Pleura and the Peritoneum: Pathologic Diagnosis and Updates

A diverse group of both benign and malignant spindle cell tumors can involve the pleura or the peritoneum. Due to their rarity and overlapping morphologic features, these tumors can pose considerable diagnostic difficulty in surgical pathology. As these tumors differ in their prognosis and clinical management, their correct pathologic diagnosis is critical. In addition to histologic assessment, select immunohistochemical and molecular tools can aid the distinction among these tumors. In this review, we consider some of the major histologic differential diagnosis of spindle cell tumors involving these serosal membranes. This list of tumors includes: solitary fibrous tumor, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, desmoid fibromatosis, synovial sarcoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma, spindle cell melanoma, dedifferentiated liposarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma. We describe their salient clinicopathologic and genetic findings, with a review on some of the recent discoveries on their molecular pathogenesis.

Undifferentiated Melanoma Resembling Undifferentiated Round Cell Sarcoma: The Diagnostic Power of Molecular Melanoma Signature

Melanomas presenting in primary or metastatic sites with a poorly differentiated histology comprise dedifferentiated (DM) and undifferentiated melanomas (UM), the latter consisting purely of undifferentiated cells and totally lacking immunophenotypic features of melanoma. These entities have a wide morphological spectrum including round cell sarcoma-like features which pose a significant diagnostic challenge. Here we present a case of UM with morphological and immunohistochemical features resembling undifferentiated round cell sarcoma, whose diagnosis could only be established after proper integration of clinical and molecular data. This diagnostically challenging case, fulfilling the previously proposed diagnostic criteria by Agaimy et al, expands the clinicopathological spectrum of DM/UM, highlights the essence of molecular signature, and further emphasizes the importance of patient's history in any morphological setting.

Dedifferentiated and Undifferentiated Melanomas: Report of 35 New Cases With Literature Review and Proposal of Diagnostic Criteria

Dedifferentiated melanoma (DM) and undifferentiated melanoma (UM) is defined as a primary or metastatic melanoma showing transition between conventional and undifferentiated components (DM) or lacking histologic and immunophenotypic features of melanoma altogether (UM). The latter is impossible to verify as melanoma by conventional diagnostic tools alone. We herein describe our experience with 35 unpublished cases to expand on their morphologic, phenotypic, and genotypic spectrum, along with a review of 50 previously reported cases (total: 85) to establish the diagnostic criteria. By definition, the dedifferentiated/undifferentiated component lacked expression of 5 routinely used melanoma markers (S100, SOX10, Melan-A, HMB45, Pan-melanoma). Initial diagnoses (known in 66 cases) were undifferentiated/unclassified pleomorphic sarcoma (n=30), unclassified epithelioid malignancy (n=7), pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (n=5), other specific sarcoma types (n=6), poorly differentiated carcinoma (n=2), collision tumor (n=2), atypical fibroxanthoma (n=2), and reactive osteochondromatous lesion (n=1). In only 11 cases (16.6%) was a diagnosis of melanoma considered. Three main categories were identified: The largest group (n=56) comprised patients with a history of verified previous melanoma who presented with metastatic DM or UM. Axillary or inguinal lymph nodes, soft tissue, bone, and lung were mainly affected. A melanoma-compatible mutation was detected in 35 of 48 (73%) evaluable cases: BRAF (n=20; 40.8%), and NRAS (n=15; 30.6%). The second group (n=15) had clinicopathologic features similar to group 1, but a melanoma history was lacking. Axillary lymph nodes (n=6) was the major site in this group followed by the lung, soft tissue, and multiple site involvement. For this group, NRAS mutation was much more frequent (n=9; 60%) than BRAF (n=3; 20%) and NF1 (n=1; 6.6%). The third category (n=14) comprised primary DM (12) or UM (2). A melanoma-compatible mutation was detected in only 7 cases: BRAF (n=2), NF1 (n=2), NRAS (n=2), and KIT exon 11 (n=1). This extended follow-up study highlights the high phenotypic plasticity of DM/UM and indicates significant underrecognition of this aggressive disease among general surgical pathologists. The major clues to the diagnosis of DM and UM are: (1) presence of minimal differentiated clone in DM, (2) earlier history of melanoma, (3) undifferentiated histology that does not fit any defined entity, (4) locations at sites that are unusual for undifferentiated/unclassified pleomorphic sarcoma (axilla, inguinal, neck, digestive system, etc.), (5) unusual multifocal disease typical of melanoma spread, (6) detection of a melanoma-compatible gene mutation, and (7) absence of another genuine primary (eg, anaplastic carcinoma) in other organs.

Dedifferentiated and undifferentiated neoplasms: A conceptual approach

This review provides a conceptual approach to dedifferentiation across a variety of tumor types, with particular attention to genetic events that tie together morphologically disparate areas of these neoplasms. First, working definitions of the terms differentiated, undifferentiated, and dedifferentiated are developed. Then, specific examples of tumors with a particular propensity for undergoing dedifferentiation are highlighted, with emphasis on both immunohistochemical studies and molecular lesions that enable surgical pathologists to establish diagnostic clarity in morphologically vexing situations. Throughout this review, the historical arc of the literature is followed, and therefore the discussion of specific tumor types begins with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, the neoplasm that inspired the terminology regarding dedifferentiation that remains in use today. Selected other sarcomas with well-established pathways of dedifferentiation are subsequently discussed, followed by descriptions of this process in subtypes of carcinoma and melanoma.

BRAF V600E mutation is a potential therapeutic target for a small subset of synovial sarcoma

Synovial sarcoma (SS) is an aggressive tumor that most often affects the deep soft tissues in young adults. Intrathoracic SS is rare and is associated with poor outcome, highlighting the urgent need for a novel therapeutic strategy. In the process of clinical sequencing, we identified two patients with intrathoracic SS harboring the BRAF V600E mutation. The patients were women aged 32 and 23 years, and both presented with SS18-SSX2-positive monophasic SS in the thoracic cavity. BRAF V600E mutations were detected by next generation sequencing, and validated immunohistochemically by diffuse intense positivity to BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibodies. The phosphorylated ERK (pERK) immunohistochemistry result was also positive. One patient received a combination therapy of dabrafenib and trametinib, which led to tumor shrinkage. However, the tumor growth progressed 7.5 months later with an additional NRAS Q61K mutation. Immunohistochemical screening of 67 archival SS tumor samples failed to identify additional samples with BRAF V600E mutation. However, 32% of BRAF V600E-negative cases was positive for pERK, and one of the six tumors showing the highest pERK expression harbored an FGFR2-activating mutation. This is the first report of targetable BRAF mutation in a small subset of SS. Our study suggests involvement of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway and the potential clinical implication of BRAF mutation screening in SS.

A case report of metastatic giant sarcomatoid melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation: a complete response to targeted therapy

Sarcomatoid melanoma is an extremely rare pattern of malignant melanoma, and only few cases have been described throughout the literature. We herein report a case of a patient with newly diagnosed, metastatic giant sarcomatoid melanoma of the arm. The patient underwent surgical removal of the huge mass, and NGS sequencing demonstrated BRAF V600E mutation.

In view of histological, immunohistochemical and molecular findings, a combined BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAF/MEK-i) therapy was prescribed as first line treatment. A complete response (over one year) to targeted therapy was obtained, and no adverse events have been reported. The patient maintained a full range of shoulder and elbow movements, and she is able to live independently and resume her daily activities. We therefore recommend that all patients with undifferentiated melanomas, sarcomatoid cutaneous malignancies or other mesenchymal tumours, should undergo BRAFV600E mutation testing.

Dedifferentiated melanomas: Morpho-phenotypic profile, genetic reprogramming and clinical implications

Phenotypic plasticity of malignant melanoma is a well-known phenomenon. Several translational studies and small case series have reported this clinical and biological entity, particularly in metastatic melanoma, showing frequent aberrant expression of non-melanocytic differentiation markers of different lineages, posing remarkable challenges due to several alternative differential diagnoses including undifferentiated carcinoma and sarcomas. When melanoma loses its typical morpho-phenotype by routinely used diagnostic immunohistochemical markers, it is defined as "dedifferentiated melanoma". Historically, this process was closely related to diagnostic interpretative difficulties. In recent years, however, dedifferentiation has been increasingly recognized as an important biological phenomenon that demonstrates the phenotypic and genetic plasticity of melanoma, and specifically the non-irreversibility of the multistep cancerogenesis. Furthermore, dedifferentiation emerged as a general hallmark of cancer evolution and a common denominator of cross-resistance to both targeted and immunotherapy. In this review, we summarize the histopathological features, the genetic and epigenetic bases underlying the dedifferentiated phenotype in melanomas and provide additional support that dedifferentiation is a mechanism of resistance to immunotherapy and targeted therapy.

CD10 and p63 expression in a sarcomatoid undifferentiated melanoma: A cautionary (and molecularly annotated) tale

Undifferentiated melanoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of sarcomatoid cutaneous malignancies to ensure that patients receive the correct treatment. Dermatopathologists should recognize the pitfalls of relying too heavily on immunohistochemistry to establish this diagnosis and consider ancillary tests, including single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) copy number arrays and targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS), when a definitive diagnosis cannot be rendered on a primary or metastatic tumor. This technology can also help to exclude a collision of melanoma and sarcoma when both differentiated and undifferentiated components are juxtaposed. We describe an exceedingly rare, illustrative example of undifferentiated sarcomatoid melanoma presenting as a pedunculated nodule. The clinical context and presence of a small differentiated component helped to establish the diagnosis; however, the transition from differentiated to undifferentiated melanoma was accompanied by an abrupt loss of S100, Sox10, MITF, MelanA, and HMB45 with gain of CD10 and p63 staining. SNP copy number array and NGS revealed shared chromosomal copy number changes and overlapping mutations with additional aberrances detected exclusively in the sarcomatoid component, thereby excluding a collision tumor and confirming our putative impression of melanoma with progression to an undifferentiated sarcomatoid phenotype.

BRAF mutation and its inhibitors in sarcoma treatment

The mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway plays a significant role in mediating cellular physiological activities, such as proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, and senescence. This signaling pathway is composed of several major proto‐oncogenes of RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK, among which the BRAF proto‐oncogene, as one of the three members of the RAF family, has a higher mutation rate than ARAF and CRAF and has attracted extensive attention. Regarding the BRAF mutation, approximately 95% of BRAF mutations belong to the BRAF V600E mutation, which can enhance the expression of the MAPK signaling pathway and is thus related to the occurrence and development of various malignant tumors and has been successfully identified as a therapeutic target. Moreover, drug resistance to BRAF inhibitor treatment also appears to be an important issue. Considering the successful use of BRAF inhibitors in melanoma, we provide a brief overview of the BRAF mutations, including their basic structures and activation mechanisms, and the new classification method for BRAF mutations. Most importantly, we summarize the results of BRAF inhibitor treatment in different sarcomas. To overcome drug resistance to BRAF inhibitor treatment, we also outline the different mechanisms of drug resistance to BRAF inhibitor treatment and introduce the combination strategy of BRAF inhibitors with other targeted therapies.

Primary Dedifferentiated Amelanotic Anorectal Melanoma: Report of a Rare Case

Anorectal melanoma (ARM) is an uncommon aggressive malignancy that comprises 0.5% to 1.6% of all melanoma manifestations. Dedifferentiated melanoma is very rare with loss of all melanocytic differentiation markers and is usually seen in metastatic melanoma of cutaneous origin. In this article, we report the first case of primary dedifferentiated amelanotic ARM in a 68-year-old male who presented with anal discomfort that was initially treated as inflamed hemorrhoids. Physical examination revealed a large protruding anal mass, biopsy of which showed biphasic malignant tumor cells with distinct immunoprofiles: a superficial spindled/sarcomatoid component positive for SOX10 and S100, and a deeper epithelioid/rhabdoid component positive for desmin, AE1/AE3, and EMA. Both components were negative for HMB-45, Melan-A/MART-1, c-Kit, and other lineage markers. Molecular analysis by polymerase chain reaction demonstrated wild-type BRAF and KRAS genes. A diagnosis of dedifferentiated ARM was made based on the coexistence of a differentiated component (spindled: S100 and SOX10 positive) and a dedifferentiated component (epithelioid: all melanoma markers including S100 and SOX10 negative). Shortly afterwards, the patient developed extensive pulmonary and liver metastases and expired 20 days after the diagnosis was rendered, reinforcing the highly aggressive nature of this disease entity.

Detection of driver mutations in BRAF can aid in diagnosis and early treatment of dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma

Dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma can pose a significant diagnostic challenge, especially if the history of primary melanoma is not known or is remote. BRAF and NRAS mutations are common melanoma driver mutations that are usually sequenced to evaluate for treatment targets. We evaluated whether BRAF and NRAS mutational testing could contribute to the diagnosis of dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma when immunostains are negative. Seven patients with melanoma who had an additional diagnosis of poorly differentiated sarcoma with negative melanocytic immunostains were tested for BRAF and NRAS mutations. Three patients showed identical BRAF mutations in the melanoma and the poorly differentiated sarcoma and hence were re-classified as metastatic dedifferentiated melanoma. In these three patients, there was an average delay of 7 months before appropriate testing, workup and treatment for metastatic melanoma was initiated. Two of these patients currently have stable metastatic disease and show sustained therapeutic response to melanoma-specific treatment including BRAF inhibitors. BRAF mutational analysis should therefore be considered in cases of poorly differentiated sarcoma, especially if there is a known history of melanoma or with unusual localization of disease. The administration of melanoma-specific treatments in such dedifferentiated cases can show therapeutic response, highlighting the importance of rendering accurate diagnoses on such cases.

Metastatic Malignant Melanoma With Complete Loss of Differentiation Markers (Undifferentiated/Dedifferentiated Melanoma): Analysis of 14 Patients Emphasizing Phenotypic Plasticity and the Value of Molecular Testing as Surrogate Diagnostic Marker

Metastatic malignant melanoma is notorious for its phenotypic diversity and loss of differentiation markers. We herein summarized our experience with 14 metastatic melanomas showing complete loss of immunohistochemical melanocytic markers (with or without heterologous differentiation). Patients included 11 men and 3 women aged 24 to 78 years (median, 67 y). Thirteen patients had histologically confirmed primary skin melanoma, and 1 had metastatic melanoma of unknown primary. Undifferentiated metastasis was diagnosed synchronous to primary tumor (n=1), following skin melanoma by 3 months to 9 years (n=11) and preceding it by 1 year (n=1). Sites of undifferentiated metastases were axillary (3), inguinal (1), or submandibular (1) lymph nodes, digestive tract (2), bone/soft tissue (2), lung/pleura (2), and disseminated (n=3). Histology of metastases mimicked undifferentiated pleomorphic or spindle cell sarcoma with variable myxoid and giant cell areas (n=10) and cytokeratin-positive undifferentiated small cell sarcoma (n=1). Three cases showed heterologous dedifferentiation: pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (n=1), teratocarcinosarcoma-like with prominent rhabdomyoblasts (n=1), and adenocarcinoma-like with metaplastic bone (n=1). All cases were negative for S100, melanoma cocktail, HMB45, Melan A, and SOX10. Other markers showed following results: smooth muscle actin (1/14), p16 (1/14), TP53 (2/12), pancytokeratin (4/14), desmin (5/14), h-caldesmon (0/9), and MDM2/CDK4 (0/5). SMARCB1 was intact in 8/8 cases. Genotyping showed BRAF(V600E) mutation (5/14), NRAS mutation (5/14), and BRAF/NRAS wild-type (4/14). In conclusion, undifferentiated/dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma is likely underrecognized and frequently mistaken for undifferentiated sarcoma or other neoplasms. Diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma at sites where melanoma metastasis are frequent (eg, inguinal and axillary region) should be made with great caution and warrants exploration of the remote history. Genotyping is a helpful surrogate marker in classifying such difficult cases. In the light of available targeted therapies, recognition of undifferentiated/dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma is mandatory for appropriate treatment.

Exceptional Clinical Response to BRAF-Targeted Therapy in a Patient with Metastatic Sarcoma

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare and heterogeneous group of tumors arising from mesenchymal tissue comprising 1% of all adult cancers. The prognosis of metastatic STS is dismal. As there are few active drugs, there is a critical need to find new therapeutic alternatives in order to improve outcomes. Most sarcoma subtypes are fairly resistant to standard chemotherapy regimens and/or have a short duration of response. The era of molecular targeted therapy may present new treatment options for metastatic STS and an opportunity to drive biomarker discovery and personalized medicine. This case report describes a patient with a synchronous metastatic high-grade sarcoma who was treated with BRAF-targeted therapy with resolution of his metastatic lesions. To our knowledge, this exceptional response has not been described in sarcoma literature. The patient presented with a large anterior abdominopelvic wall mass. Biopsy showed a high-grade spindle cell sarcoma. Staging scans confirmed two pulmonary metastases. He was initiated on combination chemotherapy with mixed results. He received 50 Gy of radiation to the primary tumor followed by two additional cycles of combination chemotherapy, with an interval increase in the size of the pulmonary metastases.  Molecular testing revealed a BRAF V600E mutation in the primary tumor. The patient was initiated on dabrafenib/trametinib with a dramatic response and resolution of his pulmonary metastases. The patient underwent surgical resection of his primary mass, and pathology confirmed no evidence of residual disease.  Detailed genetic characterization of STS coupled with novel therapeutic strategies, including molecular targeted therapy, may have the potential to transform the care of patients diagnosed with sarcoma.