Melanocytic lesions with blue naevus-like (dendritic) morphology: an update with an emphasis on histopathological, immunophenotypic, and molecular features

PRAME and LEF1 in Combined Deep Penetrating Nevus and Combined Blue Nevus: Utility and Pitfalls

ABSTRACT

Deep penetrating nevi (DPN), particularly those showing combined features, or combined deep penetrating nevi (CDPN), may show histopathological resemblance to blue nevus (BN) and melanoma. Preferentially Expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) is a marker that helps distinguish melanoma from benign melanocytic lesions. Lymphoid enhancer-binding factor 1 (LEF1) has been proposed to be used in conjunction with β-catenin for diagnosis of DPN. The immunohistochemical expression of PRAME and LEF1 was evaluated in 10 DPN (including 6 CDPN and 2 DPN-like proliferations with atypical features), 16 BN (including combined and cellular BN), and 2 melanomas with features of DPN or BN. PRAME was negative in most DPN (n = 10/10, n = 9/10, one case with discrepancy between readers) and all BN (n = 16/16), while the 2 melanomas included were positive (n = 2/2). All DPN were positive for LEF1 (n = 9/9) while only a subset of BN were positive (n = 6/16, P = 0.0028; n = 5/16, P = 0.001, per both readers). LEF1 seemed to be easier to interpret than β-catenin because of its nuclear pattern of expression. The expression of LEF1 in the regular nevus component of combined BN presents a potential pitfall in practice because it may lead to misinterpretation of LEF1 as positive in the BN component of the lesion. However, a subset (approximately one-third) of combined BN seemed to show true LEF1 expression. Taking into account pitfalls in interpretation, the combinatorial panel of PRAME and LEF1, in addition to conventional histopathological features, may be useful to distinguish CDPN from combined BN and other benign and malignant mimics.

Nevus, melanoma or something else? Mesenchymal neoplasms with melanocytic differentiation

The overwhelming majority of cutaneous neoplasms with melanocytic differentiation are nevi, melanomas and more rarely melanocytomas. Nevertheless, there is also a group of mesenchymal neoplasms with genuine melanocytic differentiation which can create diagnostic difficulties with significant repercussions. These can rarely present as primary or metastatic cutaneous lesions. Theones that are relevant to a dermatopathologist include malignant melanotic nerve sheath tumor, perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm and clear cell sarcoma. This work will provide a thorough review of clinical presentation, morphologic and immunohistochemical features as well as molecular pathogenesis of these tumors. We hope to familiarize the general dermatopathology readership with a group of neoplasms of mesenchymal lineage exhibiting melanocytic differentiation and ultimately avoid diagnostic misadventures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Conventional and Atypical Deep Penetrating Nevus, Deep Penetrating Nevus-like Melanoma, and Related Variants

Simple Summary

Atypical deep penetrating nevus (DPN) is a unique skin tumor with an uncertain biologic/metastatic potential that may be difficult to distinguish from DPN (an indolent lesion) and DPN-like melanoma (an aggressive lesion) based on the results of histomorphologic analysis and commonly employed molecular studies such as fluorescence in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization alone. Herein, we review the clinical, histomorphological, immunohistochemical, molecular, and cytogenetic characteristics of the DPN spectrum of lesions to try to better understand the prognosis of these lesions and possible treatment approaches.

Abstract

Deep penetrating nevus (DPN) is an uncommon acquired melanocytic lesion with a distinct histopathological appearance that typically behaves in an indolent manner. The lesion is characterized by a symmetrical proliferation of epithelioid to spindled melanocytes associated with abundant melanophages and wedge-shaped extension to the deep reticular dermis and subcutis. Pronounced cytologic atypia and mitotic figures are usually absent, which helps distinguish DPN from melanoma with a deep penetrating growth pattern. Recently, the concept of atypical DPN has been proposed for lesions that demonstrate borderline histomorphologic features and may be associated with lymph node deposits but lack the copy number aberrations typical of melanoma by either fluorescence in situ hybridization or comparative genomic hybridization. While most of these lesions have a favorable clinical course, rare lesions may progress to melanoma. In this review, we summarize the current literature on atypical DPNs with uncertain behavior/metastatic potential and outline the characteristics that distinguish these lesions from conventional DPN and melanoma with DPN-like features.

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.