4.6 Article

Classifying melanocytic tumors based on DNA copy number changes

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 163, Issue 5, Pages 1765-1770

Publisher

AMER SOC INVESTIGATIVE PATHOLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63536-5

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Melanoma and benign melanocytic nevi can overlap significantly in their histopathological presentation and misdiagnoses are common. To determine whether genetic criteria can be of diagnostic help we determined DNA copy number changes in 186 melanocytic tumors (132 melanomas and 54 benign nevi) using comparative genomic hybridization. We found highly significant differences between melanomas and nevi. Whereas 127 (96.2%) of the melanomas had some form of chromosomal aberration, only 7 (13.0%) of the benign nevi cases had aberrations. All seven cases with aberrations were Spitz nevi, in six of which the aberration was an isolated gain involving the entire short arm of chromosome 11. This aberration was not observed in any of the 132 melanomas. We also analyzed the 132 melanomas for genetic differences depending on anatomical site, Clark's histogenetic type, and sun-exposure pattern. We show that melanomas on acral sites have significantly more aberrations involving chromosomes 5p, 11q, 12q, and 15, as well as focused gene amplifications. Melanomas classified as lentigo maligna melanomas or as occurring on severely sun-damaged skin showed markedly more frequent losses of chromosomes 17p and 13q. This study shows a pattern of chromosomal aberration in melanoma that is distinct from melanocytic nevi and should be further evaluated as a diagnostic test for melanocytic lesions that are now ambiguous. In addition, we show marked differences in the genetic make-up of melanomas that depend on anatomical location and sun-exposure pattern indicating that potential therapeutic targets might vary among melanoma types.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available