Current PerspectiveOncogene status as a diagnostic tool in ocular and cutaneous melanoma
Introduction
The majority of melanomas, both ocular and cutaneous, are easily and accurately diagnosed based solely on clinical and pathological assessment. In select cases however, correctly diagnosing melanocytic tumours with these criteria alone can be difficult. This can be due to tumours presenting atypically (i.e. at unusual locations or with unusual morphology, immunohistochemical [IHC] marker expression, etc.). Another scenario where proper diagnosis can be challenging is when patients present with malignant melanocytic proliferations at more than one site. Here the question can arise if the tumours are related or alternatively have developed independently of each other. In these cases, making distinctions based purely on morphology and IHC markers can prove difficult, in particular as these parameters are prone to evolve and change when tumours metastasise.
The last few decades have led to a detailed understanding of the genetic underpinnings of melanoma. This has brought the realisation that most melanomas harbour one of a few commonly occurring activating oncogene mutations. For cutaneous melanomas the majority harbour BRAF (50–60%) [1], [2] or NRAS (15–30%) [3], [4] mutations. Melanomas from acral, mucosal, and chronically sun damaged skin can also harbour KIT mutations or copy number gains [5].
Ocular melanomas consist of uveal and conjunctival melanomas. Uveal melanomas have been found to harbour activating GNAQ and GNA11 mutations in 80–90% of tumours [6], [7]. In contrast, conjunctival melanomas frequently harbour NRAS and BRAF mutations, similar to cutaneous melanoma [8].
Aside from determining oncogene status for classification and diagnostic purposes, it can also have considerable clinical consequences regarding both follow-up as well as therapy. The introduction of targeted therapies i.e. for mutated BRAF or downstream molecules of the MEK-ERK-pathway has dramatically improved the therapeutic options – but are only effective in patients with the relevant mutations [9], [10], [11].
Here we present select cases from our clinic, which highlight how determining oncogene status can be extremely helpful in correctly diagnosing either the melanoma type or the relationship between different melanocytic lesions.
A 71-year-old patient developed a melanocytic tumour of the right eye (Fig. 1A), which clinically appeared to be of conjunctival origin. Pathology reported a melanoma affecting the conjunctiva with considerable intrabulbar involvement. Based on the clinical and pathological findings (Fig. 1A–D), the tumour was classified as a conjunctival melanoma. Local treatment consisted of ruthenium-106 brachytherapy. Four months later the patient developed liver metastasis (CT image, Fig. 1E). Whole body CT staging did not demonstrate other metastasis or further ocular involvement. One of the liver metastases was biopsied and the NRAS and BRAF mutation status determined, finding both to be wild type. Both the mutational status and the course of disease were not typical for conjunctival melanoma, but reminiscent of uveal melanoma. We sequenced GNAQ and GNA11 and identified a GNA11 Q209L (c.626A>T) mutation (Fig. 1F). The diagnosis was changed to uveal melanoma, most likely having originated from the ciliary body.
A 74-year-old patient presented with a melanocytic lesion of the conjunctiva (Fig. 2A). The tumour was surgically removed and the diagnosis of a conjunctival melanoma made. Two months later, a uveal melanoma of the ipsilateral eye with periscleral and optical nerve invasion was identified. The patient received an enucleation.
A subsequent genetic analysis of the conjunctival melanocytic lesion demonstrated a GNA11 Q209L (c.626A>T) mutation (Fig. 2B) and a complete loss of chromosome 3 in copy number analysis. The conjunctival tumour was therefore re-diagnosed as a metastasis of the uveal melanoma.
A 55-year-old female presented with a swollen lymph node, which was extirpated and on pathological review diagnosed as a metastasis of a malignant melanoma. No primary cutaneous lesion was identified and the patient received inguinal lymph node dissection. At the same time, the patient described a worsening of vision of the right eye. Fundoscopy revealed a melanocytic choroidal tumour. To determine if the two melanocytic lesions were related (i.e. originating from a common tumour), both were genetically analysed for the presence of mutations in BRAF, NRAS, GNAQ, and GNA11. The ocular melanoma was found to harbour a GNAQ Q209L (c.626A>T) mutation, the lymph node tumour a BRAF V600E (c.1799T>A) mutation. Based on these findings we made the rare diagnosis of an independently occurring melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) and a uveal melanoma.
A 57-year-old female presented with a melanoma metastasis of the right pectoral area (Fig. 3C, E and F). A uveal melanoma had been diagnosed and treated 8 years earlier (Fig. 3A and B). Full body staging exams showed no signs of further metastasis. A year later, additional cutaneous metastasis and a lymph node metastasis of the right axilla were identified (Fig. 3D). Considering the relatively late and untypical metastasis pattern for a uveal melanoma, a genetic analysis of a cutaneous metastasis was performed screening for mutations in BRAF, NRAS, GNAQ and GNA11. A GNA11 Q209L (c.626A>T) mutation was detected (Fig. 3G), supporting the tumour having a uveal origin.
A 74-year-old patient presented in our department as a consult case. He had an unclear tumour in the retroorbital area as well as a cutaneous nodule on the right thorax. Further staging identified metastases suspicious nodules in the lung (Fig. 4A), a submandibular mass and an enlarged lymph node underneath the left kidney. Operative treatment of the retroperitoneal, submandibular and right thoracic lesions led to the diagnosis of melanoma at all sites. An MUP was considered as well as the potential of an additional malignancy. Molecular analysis identified the tumours having GNA11 R183C (c.547C>T) mutations (Fig. 4B), which led to the conclusion that despite a very unconventional initial presentation and metastasis pattern (no liver metastasis), the primary tumour was the one located in the ocular region, representing a uveal melanoma.
Section snippets
Discussion
We believe our cases illustrate very well the benefit of determining oncogene status in a diagnostic setting. Certain aspects of oncogene mutations make them ideal to be exploited for diagnostic purposes. First, as previously described, the oncogene mutations have a characteristic distribution in different melanoma subtypes: BRAF, NRAS, and KIT occur in cutaneous and conjunctival melanoma, GNAQ and GNA11 in uveal melanoma. Second, BRAF, NRAS, KIT, GNAQ, and GNA11 mutations are with very few
Financial disclosure
The research was supported by a grant from the Werner-Jackstädt-Stiftung. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest statement
Dirk Schadendorf is on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Roche, Genentech, Novartis, Amgen, GSK, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck. Lisa Zimmer has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, and travel support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Bastian Schilling received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD Sharp & Dohme, research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Iris Moll, Marion Schwamborn, and Nicola Bielefeld for their excellent technical support.
References (11)
- et al.
Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2015) - et al.
Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer
Nature
(2002) Genomic classification of cutaneous melanoma
Cell
(2015)- et al.
Transforming ras genes from human melanoma: a manifestation of tumour heterogeneity?
Nature
(1984) - et al.
Gene amplifications characterize acral melanoma and permit the detection of occult tumor cells in the surrounding skin
Cancer Res
(2000)
Cited by (14)
Metastatic uveal melanoma: The final frontier
2022, Progress in Retinal and Eye ResearchCitation Excerpt :If the patient has a history or suspicion of both primary tumors, an analysis of characteristic driver genes is necessary. A pathogenic variant in GNAQ or GNA11 is taken to indicate uveal origin, and a variant in BRAF (V600E), which can be demonstrated also immunohistochemically, or in NRAS, indicates cutaneous origin (Everett et al., 2019; Griewank et al., 2016; Küsters-Vandevelde et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2018; Smit et al., 2020). A caveat is that 27 of 284 (10%) mucous membrane melanomas also carried a GNAQ or GNA11 pathogenic variant according to one study (Sheng et al., 2016), as do melanomas from blue nevi.
The tumor genetics of acral melanoma: What should a dermatologist know?
2020, JAAD InternationalCitation Excerpt :Single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays also provide a mechanism by detecting copy number changes in areas characteristic of melanoma.67 Mutational analyses may identify the primary tumor site in metastatic disease with uncertain primary, as described in ocular melanoma, in which distinguishing between conjunctival, uveal, and cutaneous primaries is relevant to treatment and follow-up.68 CCND1 amplifications are described in otherwise apparently normal melanocytes surrounding acral melanoma.36
MEK inhibition may increase survival of NRAS-mutated melanoma patients treated with checkpoint blockade: Results of a retrospective multicentre analysis of 364 patients
2018, European Journal of CancerCitation Excerpt :Melanoma can be classified according to genetic alterations in oncogenes such as v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (BRAF), neuroblastoma rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (NRAS), CD117 (KIT), and Neurofibroma 1 (NF1) [1,2].
Unraveling the wide spectrum of melanoma biomarkers
2021, DiagnosticsSkin Cancer: Molecular Biomarker for Diagnosis, Prognosis, Prevention, and Targeted Therapy
2021, Skin Cancer: Pathogenesis and Diagnosis