CONTEXT: The distribution of the standard melanoma antibodies S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A has been extensively studied. Yet, the overlap in their expression is less well characterized. OBJECTIVES: To determine the joint distributions of the classic melanoma markers and to determine if classification according to joint antigen expression has prognostic relevance. DESIGN: S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A were assayed by immunofluorescence-based immunohistochemistry on a large tissue microarray of 212 cutaneous melanoma primary tumors and 341 metastases. Positive expression for each antigen required display of immunoreactivity for at least 25% of melanoma cells. Marginal and joint distributions were determined across all markers. Bivariate associations with established clinicopathologic covariates and melanoma-specific survival analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 322 assayable melanomas, 295 (91.6%), 203 (63.0%), and 236 (73.3%) stained with S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A, respectively. Twenty-seven melanomas, representing a diverse set of histopathologic profiles, were S100 negative. Coexpression of all 3 antibodies was observed in 160 melanomas (49.7%). Intensity of endogenous melanin pigment did not confound immunolabeling. Among primary tumors, associations with clinicopathologic parameters revealed a significant relationship only between HMB-45 and microsatellitosis (P = .02). No significant differences among clinicopathologic criteria were observed across the HMB-45/Melan-A joint distribution categories. Neither marginal HMB-45 (P = .56) nor Melan-A (P = .81), or their joint distributions (P = .88), was associated with melanoma-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive characterization of the marginal and joint distributions for S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A across a large series of cutaneous melanomas revealed diversity of expression across this group of antigens. However, these immunohistochemically defined subclasses of melanomas do not significantly differ according to clinicopathologic correlates or outcome.
CONTEXT: The distribution of the standard melanoma antibodies S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A has been extensively studied. Yet, the overlap in their expression is less well characterized. OBJECTIVES: To determine the joint distributions of the classic melanoma markers and to determine if classification according to joint antigen expression has prognostic relevance. DESIGN:S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A were assayed by immunofluorescence-based immunohistochemistry on a large tissue microarray of 212 cutaneous melanoma primary tumors and 341 metastases. Positive expression for each antigen required display of immunoreactivity for at least 25% of melanoma cells. Marginal and joint distributions were determined across all markers. Bivariate associations with established clinicopathologic covariates and melanoma-specific survival analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 322 assayable melanomas, 295 (91.6%), 203 (63.0%), and 236 (73.3%) stained with S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A, respectively. Twenty-seven melanomas, representing a diverse set of histopathologic profiles, were S100 negative. Coexpression of all 3 antibodies was observed in 160 melanomas (49.7%). Intensity of endogenous melanin pigment did not confound immunolabeling. Among primary tumors, associations with clinicopathologic parameters revealed a significant relationship only between HMB-45 and microsatellitosis (P = .02). No significant differences among clinicopathologic criteria were observed across the HMB-45/Melan-A joint distribution categories. Neither marginal HMB-45 (P = .56) nor Melan-A (P = .81), or their joint distributions (P = .88), was associated with melanoma-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive characterization of the marginal and joint distributions for S100, HMB-45, and Melan-A across a large series of cutaneous melanomas revealed diversity of expression across this group of antigens. However, these immunohistochemically defined subclasses of melanomas do not significantly differ according to clinicopathologic correlates or outcome.
Authors: A Niezabitowski; K Czajecki; J Ryś; A Kruczak; A Gruchała; A Wasilewska; B Lackowska; A Sokołowski; W Szklarski Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Marc D Pacifico; Rajiv Grover; Paul I Richman; Frances M Daley; Francesca Buffa; George D Wilson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Marc D Pacifico; Rajiv Grover; Paul I Richman; Francesca Buffa; Frances M Daley; George D Wilson Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Marc D Pacifico; Rajiv Grover; Paul I Richman; Frances M Daley; Francesca Buffa; George D Wilson Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: K J Busam; Y T Chen; L J Old; E Stockert; K Iversen; K A Coplan; J Rosai; R L Barnhill; A A Jungbluth Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Letizia Porcelli; Michele Guida; Simona Serratì; Amalia Azzariti; Simona De Summa; Roberta Di Fonte; Ivana De Risi; Marianna Garofoli; Mariapia Caputo; Antonio Negri; Sabino Strippoli Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Parvathi Haridas; Jacqui A McGovern; Abhishek S Kashyap; D L Sean McElwain; Matthew J Simpson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Laura Bernal; Juliana Restrepo; Martha L Alarcón; Carlos Carvajal; Carlos E Bonilla; Ana Maria Ramírez; Rafael Beltrán Journal: Am J Case Rep Date: 2021-03-18