4.6 Article

DNA copy number changes correlate with clinical behavior in melanocytic neoplasms: proposal of an algorithmic approach

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 1307-1317

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41379-020-0499-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasingly, molecular methods are being utilized in the workup of melanocytic neoplasms. To this end, we sought to correlate data from a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array platform based on molecular inversion probes with clinical data. Copy number variation (CNV) data were obtained on 95 melanocytic tumors (6 ordinary nevi, 15 atypical nevi, 34 ambiguous neoplasms, and 40 melanomas) from 92 patients. The average number of significant CNVs was 0 for nevi, 0.6 for atypical nevi (range 0-3), 2.8 for ambiguous neoplasms (range 0-17), and 18.1 for melanomas (range 0-69). Clinical follow-up data were available in 57 of 95 lesions (56 of 92 patients). Tumors from patients with adverse events demonstrated an average number of CNVs of 24.5 (range 6-69) as compared with 7.9 (range 0-35) among tumors without an associated adverse event (p <= 0.001). No adverse events were observed in nevi including atypical nevi. Adverse events were found in 2 of 19 ambiguous neoplasms and 10 of 32 melanomas with follow up. In these two latter groups of neoplasms, the correlation between adverse events and the average number of CNVs remained statistically significant even when controlled for Breslow depth (21.5 versus 8.7, p value = 0.036). No neoplasm with adverse events had <= 3 CNVs. These results provide further evidence that SNP array testing for CNVs may be helpful in the classification and prognostication of ambiguous neoplasms. Based on these results, an algorithmic approach to challenging melanocytic neoplasms using CNV data is suggested, using as cutoff of >3 CNVs with some caveats, as the threshold for a positive result. Future clinical validation, using a larger cohort of relevant tumors, will be necessary.

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

4.6
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