4.5 Article

Concordant BRAFV600E mutation status in primary melanomas and associated naevi: implications for mutation testing of primary melanomas

期刊

PATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 193-198

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000077

关键词

BRAF; diagnosis; immunohistochemistry; melanoma; mutation testing; naevus; pathology; targeted therapy; treatment

资金

  1. University of Sydney
  2. Melanoma Institute Australia
  3. Cancer Institute NSW
  4. NHMRC
  5. Cancer Institute NSW Fellowship program
  6. Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is concern that BRAF mutant naevus cells admixed with melanoma cells could cause false positive mutation tests in BRAF wild-type melanomas. We sought to assess the frequency of BRAF(V600E) mutations in primary melanomas arising with/without associated naevi and determine BRAF(V600E) concordance between melanomas and associated naevi.Formalin fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue from 57 patients with primary melanomas with/without associated naevi was immunohistochemically stained to detect BRAF(V600E) mutation. In a subset of patients (n=29), molecular mutation testing was also carried out using a panel of 238 known genetic variants.Of the primary melanomas with an associated naevus (n=29), 55% were BRAF(V600E) mutant with 100% concordance between the melanoma and associated naevus. In contrast, only 21% of the primary melanomas unassociated with naevi were BRAF(V600E) mutant (p=0.009).Our results suggest that melanomas with associated naevi have a higher frequency of BRAF(V600E) mutations than melanomas unassociated with naevi. Furthermore, melanomas and their associated naevi were concordant in BRAF(V600E) status, which suggests that false positive mutation tests occurring as a consequence of admixed BRAF mutant naevus cells in BRAF wild-type primary melanomas are unlikely to be a problem in clinical practice. The findings have important implications for adjuvant clinical trials of targeted therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据