Literature DB >> 29955141

Comparison of melanoma gene expression score with histopathology, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and SNP array for the classification of melanocytic neoplasms.

Julie D R Reimann1,2, Sadia Salim3,4, Elsa F Velazquez3,5, Lu Wang6, Kelly Morrissey Williams3,5, Wendy L Flejter7, Linda Brooke7, Sujatha Sunder7, Klaus J Busam6.   

Abstract

While most melanomas can be distinguished from nevi by histopathology, the histology is ambiguous for some melanocytic tumors, contributing to diagnostic uncertainty. Therefore molecular assays, including FISH or SNP array, and more recently a gene expression test (myPath, Myriad Genetics) have been proposed to aid in the work-up of ambiguous tumors. Two hundred and sixty-eight prospectively submitted cases were gathered, with the goal of comparing the myPath assay to morphologic diagnosis in (1) morphologically unequivocal cases (198), and to morphologic diagnosis and FISH in (2) morphologically ambiguous cases (70). Melanoma FISH was performed using probes for 6p25, 6q23, 11q13, Cep6, 9p21, and Cep9 and scored according to established criteria. The myPath assay was scored by the manufacturer as benign, indeterminate, or malignant. In the unequivocal group, myPath assay showed 75% agreement with morphologic diagnosis, with 67% sensitivity and 81% specificity. In the ambiguous group, FISH and myPath showed 69% inter-test agreement. For these cases agreement with histopathologic interpretation was 84% for FISH and 74% for myPath. Sensitivity and specificity of FISH was 61 and 100%, 50 and 93% for myPath, respectively. Cases from both groups in which myPath was discordant with either morphologic diagnosis and/or FISH (81/268 cases), were submitted for evaluation by two experienced dermatopathologist and also by SNP-array. SNP-array results correlated better than FISH, which correlated better than myPath, with the morphologic interpretation. Our findings document that molecular diagnostics show good correlation with consensus diagnoses, but discordant results occur, and vary in level of correlation with consensus interpretations. Studies with long-term outcomes data within specific ambiguous lesion subsets are required to establish the accuracy of this test, as each molecular diagnostic technique has limitations based on both lack of clinical outcomes data in ambiguous melanocytic tumors and in terms of their sensitivity and specificity in melanocytic lesion subtypes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29955141      PMCID: PMC6631355          DOI: 10.1038/s41379-018-0087-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  9 in total

Review 1.  Molecular Pathology of Skin Melanoma: Epidemiology, Differential Diagnostics, Prognosis and Therapy Prediction.

Authors:  József Tímár; Andrea Ladányi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 6.208

2.  Comparison of Immunohistochemistry for PRAME With Cytogenetic Test Results in the Evaluation of Challenging Melanocytic Tumors.

Authors:  Cecilia Lezcano; Achim A Jungbluth; Klaus J Busam
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 6.298

Review 3.  Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Dekker C Deacon; Eric A Smith; Robert L Judson-Torres
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-04-16

4.  Organ Specific Copy Number Variations in Visceral Metastases of Human Melanoma.

Authors:  Orsolya Papp; Viktória Doma; Jeovanis Gil; György Markó-Varga; Sarolta Kárpáti; József Tímár; Laura Vízkeleti
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 5.  Dermatologic Disease-Directed Targeted Therapy (D3T2): The Application of Biomarker-Based Precision Medicine for the Personalized Treatment of Skin Conditions-Precision Dermatology.

Authors:  Philip R Cohen; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-09-19

6.  Diagnosis of melanoma by imaging mass spectrometry: Development and validation of a melanoma prediction model.

Authors:  Rami N Al-Rohil; Jessica L Moore; Nathan Heath Patterson; Sarah Nicholson; Nico Verbeeck; Marc Claesen; Jameelah Z Muhammad; Richard M Caprioli; Jeremy L Norris; Sara Kantrow; Margaret Compton; Jason Robbins; Ahmed K Alomari
Journal:  J Cutan Pathol       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.587

Review 7.  Melanoma pathology: new approaches and classification.

Authors:  I Yeh; B C Bastian
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 11.113

8.  Reply to Reimann et al.

Authors:  Loren E Clarke; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  Genome-wide copy number variations as molecular diagnostic tool for cutaneous intermediate melanocytic lesions: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chiel F Ebbelaar; Anne M L Jansen; Lourens T Bloem; Willeke A M Blokx
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 4.064

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.