BACKGROUND: BRAF mutation status, and therefore eligibility for BRAF inhibitors, is currently determined by sequencing methods. We assessed the validity of VE1, a monoclonal antibody against the BRAF V600E mutant protein, in the detection of mutant BRAF V600E melanomas as classified by DNA pyrosequencing. METHODS: The cases were 76 metastatic melanoma patients with only one known primary melanoma who had had BRAF codon 600 pyrosequencing of either their primary (n = 19), metastatic (n = 57) melanoma, or both (n = 17). All melanomas (n = 93) were immunostained with the BRAF VE1 antibody using a red detection system. The staining intensity of these specimens was scored from 0 to 3+ by a dermatopathologist. Scores of 0 and 1+ were considered as negative staining while scores of 2+ and 3+ were considered positive. RESULTS: The VE1 antibody showed a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 100% as compared to DNA pyrosequencing results. There was 100% concordance between VE1 immunostaining of primary and metastatic melanomas from the same patient. V600K, V600Q, and V600R BRAF melanomas did not positively stain with VE1. CONCLUSIONS: This hospital-based study finds high sensitivity and specificity for the BRAF VE1 immunostain in comparison to pyrosequencing in detection of BRAF V600E in melanomas.
BACKGROUND: BRAF mutation status, and therefore eligibility for BRAF inhibitors, is currently determined by sequencing methods. We assessed the validity of VE1, a monoclonal antibody against the BRAF V600E mutant protein, in the detection of mutant BRAF V600E melanomas as classified by DNA pyrosequencing. METHODS: The cases were 76 metastatic melanoma patients with only one known primary melanoma who had had BRAF codon 600 pyrosequencing of either their primary (n = 19), metastatic (n = 57) melanoma, or both (n = 17). All melanomas (n = 93) were immunostained with the BRAF VE1 antibody using a red detection system. The staining intensity of these specimens was scored from 0 to 3+ by a dermatopathologist. Scores of 0 and 1+ were considered as negative staining while scores of 2+ and 3+ were considered positive. RESULTS: The VE1 antibody showed a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 100% as compared to DNA pyrosequencing results. There was 100% concordance between VE1 immunostaining of primary and metastatic melanomas from the same patient. V600K, V600Q, and V600R BRAF melanomas did not positively stain with VE1. CONCLUSIONS: This hospital-based study finds high sensitivity and specificity for the BRAF VE1 immunostain in comparison to pyrosequencing in detection of BRAF V600E in melanomas.
Authors: Oskar Koperek; Christoph Kornauth; David Capper; Anna Sophie Berghoff; Reza Asari; Bruno Niederle; Andreas von Deimling; Peter Birner; Matthias Preusser Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Esther Edlundh-Rose; Suzanne Egyházi; Katarina Omholt; Eva Månsson-Brahme; Anton Platz; Johan Hansson; Joakim Lundeberg Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Alexander Skorokhod; David Capper; Andreas von Deimling; Alexander Enk; Peter Helmbold Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: David Capper; Anna Sophie Berghoff; Manuel Magerle; Aysegül Ilhan; Adelheid Wöhrer; Monika Hackl; Josef Pichler; Stefan Pusch; Jochen Meyer; Antje Habel; Peter Petzelbauer; Peter Birner; Andreas von Deimling; Matthias Preusser Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Georgia Hatzivassiliou; Kyung Song; Ivana Yen; Barbara J Brandhuber; Daniel J Anderson; Ryan Alvarado; Mary J C Ludlam; David Stokoe; Susan L Gloor; Guy Vigers; Tony Morales; Ignacio Aliagas; Bonnie Liu; Steve Sideris; Klaus P Hoeflich; Bijay S Jaiswal; Somasekar Seshagiri; Hartmut Koeppen; Marcia Belvin; Lori S Friedman; Shiva Malek Journal: Nature Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Molly Yancovitz; Adam Litterman; Joanne Yoon; Elise Ng; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Anna C Pavlick; Farbod Darvishian; Paul Christos; Madhu Mazumdar; Iman Osman; David Polsky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Craig C Carson; Stergios J Moschos; Sharon N Edmiston; David B Darr; Nana Nikolaishvili-Feinberg; Pamela A Groben; Xin Zhou; Pei Fen Kuan; Shaily Pandey; Keefe T Chan; Jamie L Jordan; Honglin Hao; Jill S Frank; Dennis A Hopkinson; David C Gibbs; Virginia D Alldredge; Eloise Parrish; Sara C Hanna; Paula Berkowitz; David S Rubenstein; C Ryan Miller; James E Bear; David W Ollila; Norman E Sharpless; Kathleen Conway; Nancy E Thomas Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Meagan B Ryan; Alexander J Finn; Katherine H Pedone; Nancy E Thomas; Channing J Der; Adrienne D Cox Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Michael T Tetzlaff; Penvadee Pattanaprichakul; Jennifer Wargo; Patricia S Fox; Keyur P Patel; Jeannelyn S Estrella; Russell R Broaddus; Michelle D Williams; Michael A Davies; Mark J Routbort; Alexander J Lazar; Scott E Woodman; Wen-Jen Hwu; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Victor G Prieto; Carlos A Torres-Cabala; Jonathan L Curry Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Shira Y Wieder; Madhavika N Serasinghe; Julie C Sung; Daniel C Choi; Miriam B Birge; Jonathan L Yao; Emily Bernstein; Julide T Celebi; Jerry E Chipuk Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Michelle Chin I Lo; Anna Paterson; Jane Maraka; Richard Clark; Joseph Goodwill; Jenny Nobes; Jennifer Garioch; Marc Moncrieff; Ed Rytina; Laszlo Igali Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 7.640