Assessment of Copy Number Status of Chromosomes 6 and 11 by FISH Provides Independent Prognostic Information in Primary Melanoma

Melanoma incidence has been rising steadily for decades, whereas mortality rates have remained flat. This type of discordant pattern between incidence and mortality has been linked to diagnostic drift in cancers of the thyroid, breast, and prostate. Ancillary tests, such as fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), are now being used to help differentiate melanomas from melanocytic nevi. Multicolor FISH has been shown to distinguish between these 2 with 86.7% sensitivity and 95.4% specificity. To assess the ability of FISH to differentiate melanomas with metastatic or lethal potential from those with an indolent disease course, we performed FISH with probes targeting 6p25, centromere 6, 6q23, and 11q13 on 144 primary melanomas with a minimal tumor thickness of 2 mm and compared the development of metastatic disease and melanoma-specific mortality as well as relapse-free and disease-specific survival between FISH-positive and FISH-negative cases. Of the melanomas, 82% were positive by FISH according to previously defined criteria. The percentage was significantly higher (93%) in cases that developed systemic metastases (n=43) than in patients that did not (77%, n=101). FISH-positive primaries had a significantly increased risk of metastasis or melanoma-related death compared with FISH-negative cases odds ratio 4.11; confidence interval, 1.14-22.7 and odds ratio 7.0, confidence interval 1.03-300.4, respectively. FISH status remained an independent parameter when controlling for known prognostic factors. These data indicate that the group of melanomas diagnosed with routine histopathology that lack aberrations detected by FISH is enriched for melanomas with a more indolent disease course. This suggests that molecular techniques can assist in a more accurate identification of tumors with metastatic potential.

[1]  M. Smith,et al.  Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) as an Ancillary Diagnostic Tool in the Diagnosis of Melanoma , 2011 .

[2]  K. Flaherty,et al.  Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  D. Schadendorf,et al.  Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  H. Welch,et al.  Overdiagnosis in cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  M. Kashani-Sabet,et al.  Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma at a melanoma referral center. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[6]  J. Guitart,et al.  Sensitivity of fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis using RREB1, MYB, Cep6, and 11q13 probes in melanoma subtypes. , 2010, Archives of dermatology.

[7]  S. Jhanwar,et al.  Distinction of conjunctival melanocytic nevi from melanomas by fluorescence in situ hybridization , 2010, Journal of cutaneous pathology.

[8]  N. Kolaitis,et al.  Use of Fluorescence In situ Hybridization (FISH) to Distinguish Intranodal Nevus From Metastatic Melanoma , 2010, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[9]  V. Sondak,et al.  Pathology review of thin melanoma and melanoma in situ in a multidisciplinary melanoma clinic: impact on treatment decisions. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Yu Fang,et al.  Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization for Distinguishing Nevoid Melanomas From Mitotically Active Nevi , 2009, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  M. Mihm,et al.  A fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) procedure to assist in differentiating benign from malignant melanocytic lesions. , 2009, Pathologica.

[12]  D. Greenberg,et al.  Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night’s dream? , 2009, The British journal of dermatology.

[13]  J. Guitart,et al.  Fluorescence in situ hybridization as a tool for microstaging in malignant melanoma , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[14]  G. Mann,et al.  Diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic tumours by four‐colour fluorescence in situ hybridisation , 2009, Pathology.

[15]  S. Lodha,et al.  Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of difficult melanocytic neoplasms in the clinical setting , 2008, Journal of cutaneous pathology.

[16]  J. Fridlyand,et al.  Distinct sets of genetic alterations in melanoma. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Skin biopsy rates and incidence of melanoma: population based ecological study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Daniel Pinkel,et al.  Classifying melanocytic tumors based on DNA copy number changes. , 2003, The American journal of pathology.

[19]  G. Burg,et al.  Experts and gold standards in dermatopathology: qualitative and quantitative analysis of the self-assessment slide seminar at the 17th colloquium of the International Society of Dermatopathology. , 1998, The American Journal of dermatopathology.

[20]  W. Mooi,et al.  Quality assessment by expert opinion in melanoma pathology: experience of the Pathology Panel of the Dutch Melanoma Working Party , 1997, The Journal of pathology.

[21]  E. Farmer,et al.  Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists. , 1996, Human pathology.

[22]  R. Corona,et al.  Interobserver variability on the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.