Hanna Eriksson1, Abdlsattar Zebary1, Ismini Vassilaki2, Katarina Omholt3, Mehran Ghaderi1, Johan Hansson1. 1. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Dermatologic Diagnostic Centre, Unit of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden3Department of Clinical Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: BRAFV600E mutations are present in approximately 50% of cutaneous malignant melanomas (CMMs). The use of BRAFV600E mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 immunohistochemical analysis may facilitate rapid detection of BRAFV600E mutations in CMMs and demonstrate heterogeneity among tumors. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the pattern of BRAFV600E protein expression in primary CMMs with matched metastases and to analyze the use of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis in clinical practice using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study performed at Karolinska University Hospital from September 2012 to September 2013, we examined CMMs (124 primary tumors and 76 metastases) with VE1 immunohistochemical analysis, and results were compared with DNA mutation analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Determination of intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity as well as the sensitivity and specificity of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis. RESULTS: Positive staining results with the VE1 antibody were detected in 94 of 200 tumors (47.0%). In general, VE1 staining was homogeneous. However, VE1 staining intensity varied among the primary tumors and corresponding metastases in 63 of 135 tumors (46.7%), but a change of mutational status based on DNA analysis was found in only 4 matched tumors (3.0%). Discordant findings between DNA mutation analysis and immunohistochemical analysis were observed in 12 tumors. The overall sensitivity and specificity of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis were 96.7% and 94.5%, respectively. A comparable sensitivity was obtained for primary and metastatic CMMs. The specificity was lower among primary CMMs (92.4%) compared with metastases (98.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We found VE1 immunohistochemical analysis to be a useful and rapid assay for BRAFV600E mutations that may contribute to the detection of intratumoral and intertumoral heterogenetic subclones. Tumors with positive results, including strong staining, should be expedited for confirmatory BRAF mutation testing. If this test result is negative, a false-negative result of the mutation analysis should be considered. Validation of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis in clinical practice is needed.
IMPORTANCE: BRAFV600E mutations are present in approximately 50% of cutaneous malignant melanomas (CMMs). The use of BRAFV600E mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 immunohistochemical analysis may facilitate rapid detection of BRAFV600E mutations in CMMs and demonstrate heterogeneity among tumors. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the pattern of BRAFV600E protein expression in primary CMMs with matched metastases and to analyze the use of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis in clinical practice using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study performed at Karolinska University Hospital from September 2012 to September 2013, we examined CMMs (124 primary tumors and 76 metastases) with VE1 immunohistochemical analysis, and results were compared with DNA mutation analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Determination of intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity as well as the sensitivity and specificity of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis. RESULTS: Positive staining results with the VE1 antibody were detected in 94 of 200 tumors (47.0%). In general, VE1 staining was homogeneous. However, VE1 staining intensity varied among the primary tumors and corresponding metastases in 63 of 135 tumors (46.7%), but a change of mutational status based on DNA analysis was found in only 4 matched tumors (3.0%). Discordant findings between DNA mutation analysis and immunohistochemical analysis were observed in 12 tumors. The overall sensitivity and specificity of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis were 96.7% and 94.5%, respectively. A comparable sensitivity was obtained for primary and metastatic CMMs. The specificity was lower among primary CMMs (92.4%) compared with metastases (98.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We found VE1 immunohistochemical analysis to be a useful and rapid assay for BRAFV600E mutations that may contribute to the detection of intratumoral and intertumoral heterogenetic subclones. Tumors with positive results, including strong staining, should be expedited for confirmatory BRAF mutation testing. If this test result is negative, a false-negative result of the mutation analysis should be considered. Validation of VE1 immunohistochemical analysis in clinical practice is needed.
Authors: Liang Cheng; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Francesco Massari; Gregory T MacLennan; Rodolfo Montironi Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 7.842
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
Authors: Margaret Ottaviano; Emilio Francesco Giunta; Marianna Tortora; Marcello Curvietto; Laura Attademo; Davide Bosso; Cinzia Cardalesi; Mario Rosanova; Pietro De Placido; Erica Pietroluongo; Vittorio Riccio; Brigitta Mucci; Sara Parola; Maria Grazia Vitale; Giovannella Palmieri; Bruno Daniele; Ester Simeone Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 5.923