Introduction: Loss of BAP1 protein expression emerged as a negative prognostic marker in uveal melanoma (UM) and has primarily been studied in enucleations. Intraocular biopsy is frequently performed prior to UM globe-conserving therapy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated BAP1 immunostaining of UM in 16 biopsies and 8 subsequent enucleations, and results were correlated with the UM-specific gene expression profile (GEP; n = 11), chromosome 3 status by FISH and/or chromosomal microarray (n = 12; 9 also had GEP), and clinical outcomes. Results: UM involved the choroid in 15 (of 16) cases. Biopsy was performed for prognostication (n = 12) or diagnosis (n = 4). Treatment included brachytherapy (n = 13; 5 followed by enucleation) or enucleation only (n = 3). BAP1 nuclear immunostaining was positive in 9, negative in 4, and equivocal in 3 biopsies. For the 3 equivocal biopsies, BAP1 immunostaining was positive in 2 (of 3) subsequent enucleations. BAP1 immunostaining was concordant between all 5 remaining biopsies and enucleations. BAP1-positive biopsies had disomy 3 (n = 6) or 3p loss (n = 1) and class 1 GEP (n = 6). BAP1-negative biopsies had monosomy 3 (n = 3) and class 2 GEP (n = 2). Median follow-up was 62.5 months (range, 17-150). For BAP1-positive UM patients, 8 were alive (7 without metastatic disease) and 3 had died (1 melanoma-related death). Among BAP1-negative UM patients, 2 were alive (1 with metastatic disease) and 3 had melanoma-related deaths. Conclusion: BAP1 immunostaining in biopsies highly correlates with results in subsequent enucleations and with well-established UM prognostic markers, representing a potential additional prognostic tool for UM biopsies.
Introduction: Loss of BAP1 protein expression emerged as a negative prognostic marker in uveal melanoma (UM) and has primarily been studied in enucleations. Intraocular biopsy is frequently performed prior to UM globe-conserving therapy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated BAP1 immunostaining of UM in 16 biopsies and 8 subsequent enucleations, and results were correlated with the UM-specific gene expression profile (GEP; n = 11), chromosome 3 status by FISH and/or chromosomal microarray (n = 12; 9 also had GEP), and clinical outcomes. Results: UM involved the choroid in 15 (of 16) cases. Biopsy was performed for prognostication (n = 12) or diagnosis (n = 4). Treatment included brachytherapy (n = 13; 5 followed by enucleation) or enucleation only (n = 3). BAP1 nuclear immunostaining was positive in 9, negative in 4, and equivocal in 3 biopsies. For the 3 equivocal biopsies, BAP1 immunostaining was positive in 2 (of 3) subsequent enucleations. BAP1 immunostaining was concordant between all 5 remaining biopsies and enucleations. BAP1-positive biopsies had disomy 3 (n = 6) or 3p loss (n = 1) and class 1 GEP (n = 6). BAP1-negative biopsies had monosomy 3 (n = 3) and class 2 GEP (n = 2). Median follow-up was 62.5 months (range, 17-150). For BAP1-positive UM patients, 8 were alive (7 without metastatic disease) and 3 had died (1 melanoma-related death). Among BAP1-negative UM patients, 2 were alive (1 with metastatic disease) and 3 had melanoma-related deaths. Conclusion: BAP1 immunostaining in biopsies highly correlates with results in subsequent enucleations and with well-established UM prognostic markers, representing a potential additional prognostic tool for UM biopsies.
Authors: Scott D Walter; Daniel L Chao; William Feuer; Joyce Schiffman; Devron H Char; J William Harbour Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: A Gordon Robertson; Juliann Shih; Christina Yau; Ewan A Gibb; Junna Oba; Karen L Mungall; Julian M Hess; Vladislav Uzunangelov; Vonn Walter; Ludmila Danilova; Tara M Lichtenberg; Melanie Kucherlapati; Patrick K Kimes; Ming Tang; Alexander Penson; Ozgun Babur; Rehan Akbani; Christopher A Bristow; Katherine A Hoadley; Lisa Iype; Matthew T Chang; Andrew D Cherniack; Christopher Benz; Gordon B Mills; Roel G W Verhaak; Klaus G Griewank; Ina Felau; Jean C Zenklusen; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Lynn Schoenfield; Alexander J Lazar; Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Sergio Roman-Roman; Marc-Henri Stern; Colleen M Cebulla; Michelle D Williams; Martine J Jager; Sarah E Coupland; Bita Esmaeli; Cyriac Kandoth; Scott E Woodman Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Martine J Jager; Carol L Shields; Colleen M Cebulla; Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Hans E Grossniklaus; Marc-Henri Stern; Richard D Carvajal; Rubens N Belfort; Renbing Jia; Jerry A Shields; Bertil E Damato Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Michael A Durante; Daniel A Rodriguez; Stefan Kurtenbach; Jeffim N Kuznetsov; Margaret I Sanchez; Christina L Decatur; Helen Snyder; Lynn G Feun; Alan S Livingstone; J William Harbour Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Michele Carbone; J William Harbour; James Brugarolas; Angela Bononi; Ian Pagano; Anwesha Dey; Thomas Krausz; Harvey I Pass; Haining Yang; Giovanni Gaudino Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 38.272