BACKGROUND: Although 90% of all melanomas are of cutaneous origin, some patients present with melanoma metastases of unknown origin (MUP). Commonly, in these patients an extensive search for the primary tumor is carried out. In the past, genetic analyses have shown substantial differences in pathogenetic mutations among cutaneous, acral and mucosal melanomas. The aim of this study was to assess the mutational status of MUP in order to better characterize the putative origin of the primary tumor and to evaluate potential prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of 44 patients with MUP were analyzed and a survival analysis was conducted. In total, 66 paraffin samples of 44 patients were analyzed, and in 15 patients multiple metastases were tested. Mutational analysis of the BRAF, NRAS and KIT genes was carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (52.3%) had a mutation in the BRAF gene and 12 patients (23.8%) had a mutation in the NRAS gene. There were neither mutations in the KIT gene. In patients with multiple samples, there was 100% consistency regarding mutational status among the different metastases. The median overall survival (OS) was 86.4 months (39-134). The American Joint Committee on Cancer stage at first diagnosis of metastatic melanoma (stage III versus IV) was significantly associated with OS (P < 0.001), BRAF or NRAS mutation status had no significant prognostic impact on clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MUP resembles the genotype of cutaneous melanoma and not that of mucosal melanomas.
BACKGROUND: Although 90% of all melanomas are of cutaneous origin, some patients present with melanoma metastases of unknown origin (MUP). Commonly, in these patients an extensive search for the primary tumor is carried out. In the past, genetic analyses have shown substantial differences in pathogenetic mutations among cutaneous, acral and mucosal melanomas. The aim of this study was to assess the mutational status of MUP in order to better characterize the putative origin of the primary tumor and to evaluate potential prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of 44 patients with MUP were analyzed and a survival analysis was conducted. In total, 66 paraffin samples of 44 patients were analyzed, and in 15 patients multiple metastases were tested. Mutational analysis of the BRAF, NRAS and KIT genes was carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (52.3%) had a mutation in the BRAF gene and 12 patients (23.8%) had a mutation in the NRAS gene. There were neither mutations in the KIT gene. In patients with multiple samples, there was 100% consistency regarding mutational status among the different metastases. The median overall survival (OS) was 86.4 months (39-134). The American Joint Committee on Cancer stage at first diagnosis of metastatic melanoma (stage III versus IV) was significantly associated with OS (P < 0.001), BRAF or NRAS mutation status had no significant prognostic impact on clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:MUP resembles the genotype of cutaneous melanoma and not that of mucosal melanomas.
Entities:
Keywords:
BRAF; genotype; melanoma of unknown primary; metastatic melanoma
Authors: Luke D Rothermel; Arvind C Sabesan; Daniel J Stephens; Smita S Chandran; Biman C Paria; Abhishek K Srivastava; Robert Somerville; John R Wunderlich; Chyi-Chia R Lee; Liqiang Xi; Trinh H Pham; Mark Raffeld; Parthav Jailwala; Manjula Kasoji; Udai S Kammula Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert V Rawson; Peter A Johansson; Nicholas K Hayward; Nicola Waddell; Ann-Marie Patch; Serigne Lo; John V Pearson; John F Thompson; Graham J Mann; Richard A Scolyer; James S Wilmott Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: James P De Andrade; Paul Wong; Michael P O'Leary; Vishwas Parekh; Arya Amini; Hans F Schoellhammer; Kim A Margolin; Michelle Afkhami; Laleh G Melstrom Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kierstin Utter; Chloe Goldman; Sarah A Weiss; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Melissa Ann Wilson; Anna C Pavlick; Iman Osman Journal: Oncology Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Deborah Kuk; Alexander N Shoushtari; Christopher A Barker; Katherine S Panageas; Rodrigo R Munhoz; Parisa Momtaz; Charlotte E Ariyan; Mary Sue Brady; Daniel G Coit; Kita Bogatch; Margaret K Callahan; Jedd D Wolchok; Richard D Carvajal; Michael A Postow Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-06-10
Authors: Sarah Sloot; Yian A Chen; Xiuhua Zhao; Jamie L Weber; Jacob J Benedict; James J Mulé; Keiran S Smalley; Jeffrey S Weber; Jonathan S Zager; Peter A Forsyth; Vernon K Sondak; Geoffrey T Gibney Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aleksandra Gos; Monika Jurkowska; Alexander van Akkooi; Caroline Robert; Hanna Kosela-Paterczyk; Senada Koljenović; Nyam Kamsukom; Wanda Michej; Arkadiusz Jeziorski; Piotr Pluta; Cornelis Verhoef; Janusz A Siedlecki; Alexander M M Eggermont; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alan E Siroy; Genevieve M Boland; Denái R Milton; Jason Roszik; Silva Frankian; Jared Malke; Lauren Haydu; Victor G Prieto; Michael Tetzlaff; Doina Ivan; Wei-Lien Wang; Carlos Torres-Cabala; Jonathan Curry; Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri; Russell Broaddus; Asif Rashid; John Stewart; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Rodabe N Amaria; Sapna P Patel; Nicholas E Papadopoulos; Agop Bedikian; Wen-Jen Hwu; Patrick Hwu; Adi Diab; Scott E Woodman; Kenneth D Aldape; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Keyur P Patel; Kenna R Shaw; Gordon B Mills; John Mendelsohn; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Kevin B Kim; Mark J Routbort; Alexander J Lazar; Michael A Davies Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 8.551