V J Mar1,2,3, W Liu1, B Devitt4, S Q Wong3, A Dobrovic5, G A McArthur3, R Wolfe2, J W Kelly1. 1. Victorian Melanoma Service, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., 3181, Australia. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., 3181, Australia. 3. Division of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, Vic., 3002, Australia. 4. Department of Oncology, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Vic., 3065, Australia. 5. Translational Genomics and Epigenomics Laboratory, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre, Heidelberg, Vic., 3084, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical behaviour and prognosis of primary melanomas harbouring BRAF mutations is not fully understood. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of mutation status on primary melanoma growth rate and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). METHODS: A prospective cohort of 196 patients with stage I-III primary cutaneous melanoma were followed for a median of 92 months, pre-dating the institution of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Clinicopathological variables were correlated with mutation status and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated for MSS. RESULTS: Of 196 tumours, 77 (39.2%) were BRAF V600E, 10 (5.1%) BRAF V600K and 33 (16.8%) were NRAS mutant. BRAF V600E mutant melanomas were associated with favourable clinical characteristics and tended to be slower growing compared with BRAF V600K, NRAS mutant or BRAF/NRAS wild-type tumours (0.12 mm per month, 0.61 mm per month, 0.36 mm per month and 0.23 mm per month, respectively; P = 0.05). There were 39 melanoma deaths, and BRAF mutant melanomas were associated with poorer MSS in stage I-III disease [HR 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-5.63; P = 0.02] and stage I-II disease (HR 3.39, 95% CI 1.12-10.22; P = 0.03) after adjusting for other prognostic variables. Considered separately, BRAF V600E mutant melanomas were strongly associated with MSS independently of thickness and nodal status (HR 3.89, 95% CI 1.67-9.09; P < 0.01) but BRAF V600K mutant tumours were not (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.36-3.92; P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a BRAF mutation does not necessarily 'drive' more rapid tumour growth but is associated with poorer MSS in patients with early-stage disease.
BACKGROUND: The clinical behaviour and prognosis of primary melanomas harbouring BRAF mutations is not fully understood. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of mutation status on primary melanoma growth rate and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). METHODS: A prospective cohort of 196 patients with stage I-III primary cutaneous melanoma were followed for a median of 92 months, pre-dating the institution of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Clinicopathological variables were correlated with mutation status and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated for MSS. RESULTS: Of 196 tumours, 77 (39.2%) were BRAFV600E, 10 (5.1%) BRAFV600K and 33 (16.8%) were NRAS mutant. BRAFV600E mutant melanomas were associated with favourable clinical characteristics and tended to be slower growing compared with BRAFV600K, NRAS mutant or BRAF/NRAS wild-type tumours (0.12 mm per month, 0.61 mm per month, 0.36 mm per month and 0.23 mm per month, respectively; P = 0.05). There were 39 melanoma deaths, and BRAF mutant melanomas were associated with poorer MSS in stage I-III disease [HR 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-5.63; P = 0.02] and stage I-II disease (HR 3.39, 95% CI 1.12-10.22; P = 0.03) after adjusting for other prognostic variables. Considered separately, BRAFV600E mutant melanomas were strongly associated with MSS independently of thickness and nodal status (HR 3.89, 95% CI 1.67-9.09; P < 0.01) but BRAFV600K mutant tumours were not (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.36-3.92; P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a BRAF mutation does not necessarily 'drive' more rapid tumour growth but is associated with poorer MSS in patients with early-stage disease.
Authors: Emilia Hugdahl; May Britt Kalvenes; Hanne E Puntervoll; Rita G Ladstein; Lars A Akslen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Atte A Manninen; Maria Gardberg; Susanna Juteau; Suvi Ilmonen; Joonas Jukonen; Noora Andersson; Olli Carpén Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roy Rabbie; Peter Ferguson; Christian Molina-Aguilar; David J Adams; Carla D Robles-Espinoza Journal: J Pathol Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Jacqueline A Turner; Judson G T Bemis; Stacey M Bagby; Anna Capasso; Betelehem W Yacob; Tugs-Saikhan Chimed; Robert Van Gulick; Hannah Lee; Richard Tobin; John J Tentler; Todd Pitts; Martin McCarter; William A Robinson; Kasey L Couts Journal: Oncogene Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 8.756
Authors: Nikki R Adler; Rory Wolfe; Grant A McArthur; John W Kelly; Andrew Haydon; Catriona A McLean; Victoria J Mar Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 7.640