Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization as an Ancillary Tool in the Diagnosis of Ambiguous Melanocytic Neoplasms: A Review of 804 Cases

Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as an ancillary method in the diagnostic workup of histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms. A combination of probes targeting 3 loci on chromosome 6 and 1 on 11q has been reported to distinguish unequivocal melanomas and nevi with a sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 96%, respectively. However, information on how FISH should be integrated into routine clinical testing is limited. We report our experience of FISH testing of 804 ambiguous melanocytic lesions performed as part of routine workup at University of California, San Francisco. The main category (47% of all cases) for which FISH testing was requested was Spitz tumors. Other categories included the distinction of possible melanoma from combined nevi (9%), acral or mucosal nevi (9%), Clark/dysplastic nevi (7%), and blue or deep penetrating nevi (6%) and to assess the possibility of nevoid melanoma (4%). Of the ambiguous tumors successfully tested, 88% received a more definitive benign or malignant final diagnosis. Of the 630 cases that tested negative by FISH, the final diagnosis was benign in 489 (78%) cases, ambiguous in 91 cases (14%), and malignant in 50 cases (8%). A positive FISH result was observed in 124 cases, with a final diagnosis of melanoma in 117 (94%). One (1%) FISH-positive case had an equivocal final diagnosis, and 6 (5%) were interpreted, despite the positive FISH result, as melanocytic nevi. We conclude that FISH testing can help reduce the number of equivocal diagnoses in ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms, in particular if FISH testing is positive, and discuss the challenges and limitations of FISH in clinical practice.

[1]  J. Guitart,et al.  A Highly Specific and Discriminatory FISH Assay for Distinguishing Between Benign and Malignant Melanocytic Neoplasms , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  J. Guitart,et al.  Enhanced Detection of Spitzoid Melanomas Using Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization With 9p21 as an Adjunctive Probe , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  B. Bastian,et al.  Assessment of Copy Number Status of Chromosomes 6 and 11 by FISH Provides Independent Prognostic Information in Primary Melanoma , 2011, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[4]  L. Cerroni,et al.  Fluorescence in situ hybridization, a diagnostic aid in ambiguous melanocytic tumors: European study of 113 cases , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[5]  R. Iyer,et al.  Copy Number Variations and Clinical Outcome in Atypical Spitz Tumors , 2011, American Journal of Surgical Pathology.

[6]  S. Purcell Classifying ambiguous melanocytic lesions with FISH and correlation with clinical long-term follow up , 2011 .

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

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

[9]  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.

[10]  M. Martini,et al.  Polyploidy in Spitz Nevi: A Not Uncommon Karyotypic Abnormality Identifiable by Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization , 2010, The American Journal of dermatopathology.

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[18]  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.

[19]  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.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  W. Stolz,et al.  Multivariate DNA cytometry discriminates between Spitz nevi and malignant melanomas because large polymorphic nuclei in Spitz nevi are not aneuploid. , 1996, The American Journal of dermatopathology.

[23]  P. Leboit,et al.  A comparative study of Spitz nevus and nodular malignant melanoma using image analysis cytometry. , 1987, The Journal of investigative dermatology.