4.6 Article

Melanocytomas of the Central Nervous System: a clinicopathological and molecular study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 809-815

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12109

关键词

BRAF; Central Nervous System; melanocytoma; mutation; prognosis; radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Melanocytomas of the Central Nervous System (CNS) are rare and benign lesions. These slow-growing tumours can behave aggressively, with local recurrence. Various genetic aberrations occur in malignant melanomas and raise possible new therapeutic options. However, little information is available regarding these characteristic genetic alterations in melanocytomas of the CNS. This study was designed to better understand the clinicopathological and molecular features of melanocytomas. Materials and Methods Twenty cases of melanocytoma were studied by light microscopy, electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry. Clinical characteristics, therapeutic options and prognosis were analysed. BRAF, NRAS and KIT gene mutations were tested by direct DNA sequencing. Results Fourteen of twenty patients had intracranial tumours including one associated with naevus of Ota and six were spinal. Histologically, these tumours contain fusiform and epithelioid cells with little or no cellular pleomorphism and rare mitoses. Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural findings confirmed the origin of tumour cells as melanocytic. None of the melanocytomas harboured BRAF, NRAS and KIT mutations. Patients with complete resection had no tumour recurrence. Moreover, patients with incomplete tumour resection followed by radiotherapy showed a higher local control (LC) rate than incomplete resection alone (P<0.05). Conclusions BRAF, NRAS and KIT mutations appear to be rare, if not completely absent in melanocytomas of the CNS. The complete resection of the tumour or incomplete resection followed by radiotherapy should be considered as better therapeutic options to reduce the tumour recurrence.

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