Richard Ofner1, Cathrin Ritter1,2, Barbara Heidenreich3, Rajiv Kumar3, Selma Ugurel4, David Schrama5, Jürgen C Becker6,7,8. 1. Department of General Dermatology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. 2. Translational Skin Cancer Research - TSCR, DKTK Partner Site Essen/Düsseldorf, German Cancer Research Consortium, University of Duisburg Essen, Universitätsstrasse 1, Essen, 45141, Germany. 3. Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 6. Department of General Dermatology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. j.becker@dkfz.de. 7. Translational Skin Cancer Research - TSCR, DKTK Partner Site Essen/Düsseldorf, German Cancer Research Consortium, University of Duisburg Essen, Universitätsstrasse 1, Essen, 45141, Germany. j.becker@dkfz.de. 8. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany. j.becker@dkfz.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: TERT promoter mutations were detected at high frequencies in several cancer types including melanoma. Previous reports showed that these recurrent mutations increase TERT gene expression and the use of TERT mutation status as prognostic factor was suggested. OBJECTIVES: Here we screen a panel of 115 melanoma tumor samples from Austrian patients to evaluate the prevalence and distribution of TERT promoter mutations. The association with clinical and tumor characteristics and the effect on overall survival was analyzed. METHODS: Genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples was isolated followed by PCR amplification, Sanger sequencing and statistical analysis. RESULTS: We identified TERT promoter mutations in 63 of 115 (54.8%) tumor samples. No statistical significant difference in mutation frequency between primary (22/40 [55%]) and metastatic lesions (41/75 [54.7%]) was detected. BRAF-/NRAS-mutated tumors showed a higher frequency of TERT mutations (pT OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.56-9.02, p = 0.3) (met OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.98-7.66, p = 0.05). In primary melanoma, the presence of alterations in TERT was associated with the carrier status of a common single-nucleotide polymorphism rs2853669 (OR 4.55, CI 1.18-17.52, p = 0.03). In this patient cohort, TERT promoter mutations were not associated with clinical characteristics such as the presence of ulceration or Breslow thickness or showed an effect on overall survival. CONCLUSION: Alterations in the TERT promoter region are one of the most frequent mutations in melanoma. Based on this analysis and preliminary evidence, prospective studies will be needed to evaluate the reliability of TERT promoter mutations as prognostic factors in melanoma.
BACKGROUND:TERT promoter mutations were detected at high frequencies in several cancer types including melanoma. Previous reports showed that these recurrent mutations increase TERT gene expression and the use of TERT mutation status as prognostic factor was suggested. OBJECTIVES: Here we screen a panel of 115 melanoma tumor samples from Austrian patients to evaluate the prevalence and distribution of TERT promoter mutations. The association with clinical and tumor characteristics and the effect on overall survival was analyzed. METHODS: Genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples was isolated followed by PCR amplification, Sanger sequencing and statistical analysis. RESULTS: We identified TERT promoter mutations in 63 of 115 (54.8%) tumor samples. No statistical significant difference in mutation frequency between primary (22/40 [55%]) and metastatic lesions (41/75 [54.7%]) was detected. BRAF-/NRAS-mutated tumors showed a higher frequency of TERT mutations (pT OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.56-9.02, p = 0.3) (met OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.98-7.66, p = 0.05). In primary melanoma, the presence of alterations in TERT was associated with the carrier status of a common single-nucleotide polymorphism rs2853669 (OR 4.55, CI 1.18-17.52, p = 0.03). In this patient cohort, TERT promoter mutations were not associated with clinical characteristics such as the presence of ulceration or Breslow thickness or showed an effect on overall survival. CONCLUSION: Alterations in the TERT promoter region are one of the most frequent mutations in melanoma. Based on this analysis and preliminary evidence, prospective studies will be needed to evaluate the reliability of TERT promoter mutations as prognostic factors in melanoma.
Authors: Eran Hodis; Ian R Watson; Gregory V Kryukov; Stefan T Arold; Marcin Imielinski; Jean-Philippe Theurillat; Elizabeth Nickerson; Daniel Auclair; Liren Li; Chelsea Place; Daniel Dicara; Alex H Ramos; Michael S Lawrence; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrey Sivachenko; Douglas Voet; Gordon Saksena; Nicolas Stransky; Robert C Onofrio; Wendy Winckler; Kristin Ardlie; Nikhil Wagle; Jennifer Wargo; Kelly Chong; Donald L Morton; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Guo Chen; Michael Noble; Matthew Meyerson; John E Ladbury; Michael A Davies; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Stephan N Wagner; Dave S B Hoon; Dirk Schadendorf; Eric S Lander; Stacey B Gabriel; Gad Getz; Levi A Garraway; Lynda Chin Journal: Cell Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Eduardo Nagore; Barbara Heidenreich; Sívaramakrishna Rachakonda; Zaida Garcia-Casado; Celia Requena; Virtudes Soriano; Christoph Frank; Victor Traves; Esther Quecedo; Josefa Sanjuan-Gimenez; Kari Hemminki; Maria Teresa Landi; Rajiv Kumar Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Helena Pópulo; Paula Boaventura; João Vinagre; Rui Batista; Adélia Mendes; Regina Caldas; Joana Pardal; Filomena Azevedo; Mrinalini Honavar; Isabel Guimarães; José Manuel Lopes; Manuel Sobrinho-Simões; Paula Soares Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Kunitoshi Chiba; Joshua Z Johnson; Jacob M Vogan; Tina Wagner; John M Boyle; Dirk Hockemeyer Journal: Elife Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Michael Krauthammer; Yong Kong; Byung Hak Ha; Perry Evans; Antonella Bacchiocchi; James P McCusker; Elaine Cheng; Matthew J Davis; Gerald Goh; Murim Choi; Stephan Ariyan; Deepak Narayan; Ken Dutton-Regester; Ana Capatana; Edna C Holman; Marcus Bosenberg; Mario Sznol; Harriet M Kluger; Douglas E Brash; David F Stern; Miguel A Materin; Roger S Lo; Shrikant Mane; Shuangge Ma; Kenneth K Kidd; Nicholas K Hayward; Richard P Lifton; Joseph Schlessinger; Titus J Boggon; Ruth Halaban Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-07-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Nancy E Thomas; Sharon N Edmiston; Yihsuan S Tsai; Joel S Parker; Paul B Googe; Klaus J Busam; Glynis A Scott; Daniel C Zedek; Eloise A Parrish; Honglin Hao; Nathaniel A Slater; Michelle V Pearlstein; Jill S Frank; Pei Fen Kuan; David W Ollila; Kathleen Conway Journal: Am J Dermatopathol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 1.533
Authors: Emilia Hugdahl; May Britt Kalvenes; Monica Mannelqvist; Rita G Ladstein; Lars A Akslen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Tiago Bordeira Gaspar; Ana Sá; José Manuel Lopes; Manuel Sobrinho-Simões; Paula Soares; João Vinagre Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.096