Effects of BRAF V600E and NRAS mutational status on the progression‑free survival and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with melanoma

Zablocka,Tatjana; Kreismane,Madara; Pjanova,Dace; Isajevs,Sergejs

doi:10.3892/ol.2022.13613

Effects of BRAF V600E and NRAS mutational status on the progression‑free survival and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with melanoma

Authors:
- Tatjana Zablocka
- Madara Kreismane
- Dace Pjanova
- Sergejs Isajevs
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Latvia, LV‑1004 Riga, Latvia, Department of Cancer Research, Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Centre, LV‑1067 Riga, Latvia
Published online on: November 24, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2022.13613
Article Number: 27
Copyright: © Zablocka et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Hotspot mutations of the BRAF and NRAS genes are the most common genetic alterations in invasive cutaneous melanoma; however, the prognostic significance of BRAF and NRAS co‑mutations remains controversial. The present study aimed to determine the association between NRAS and BRAF mutation status and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with stage IA‑IIC melanoma. A total of 118 patients who underwent surgical treatment for stage IA‑IIC melanoma at the Riga East University Hospital between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. BRAF and NRAS mutation status was assessed by digital droplet PCR using the BRAFV600, NRAS Q61 and NRAS G12/G13 Screening Assays. The association between mutation status and clinicopathological features and progression‑free survival (PFS) was then analyzed. The BRAF V600 mutation was detected in 67 out of 118 patients (56.8%). The PFS did not differ between patients with BRAF wild‑type and BRAF‑mutant melanoma. NRAS mutations were detected in 35 out of 118 patients (29.6%). The NRAS mutational status was associated with Breslow thickness (P=0.035), tumor type (P=0.020; χ²=0.20), mitotic rate (P=0.025) and lymphovascular invasion (P=0.02; χ²=0.20). Patients with NRAS‑mutant melanoma had significantly worse PFS compared with NRAS wild‑type melanoma (HR=12.30; 95% CI=5.78‑26.21, P<0.0001). Furthermore, BRAF and NRAS co‑mutant melanoma was associated with a significantly worse PFS compared with BRAF‑mutant melanoma (HR=6.30; 95% CI=3.10‑12.70, P<0.0001). In conclusion, NRAS‑mutant and NRAS/BRAF co‑mutant stage IA‑IIC melanoma was associated with worse PFS compared with NRAS wild‑type and BRAF‑mutant melanoma. The assessment of NRAS mutation status in melanoma in routine clinical practice may be beneficial for the risk stratification of disease progression for primary non‑metastatic malignant melanoma.

View Figures

View References

1	Yang K, Oak ASW, Slominski RM, Brożyna AA and Slominski AT: Current molecular markers of melanoma and treatment targets. Int J Mol Sci. 16:35352020. View Article : Google Scholar
2	Forsea AM: Melanoma epidemiology and early detection in Europe: Diversity and disparities. Dermatol Pract Concept. 10:e20200332020. View Article : Google Scholar
3	Elder DE, Massi D, Scolyer RA and Willemze R: WHO Classification of Skin Tumours. 11. 4th edition. IARC Publications; Geneva, CH: 2018
4	Shellenberger R, Nabhan M and Kakaraparthi S: Melanoma screening: A plan for improving early detection. Ann Med. 48:142–148. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Mandalà M and Massi D: Tissue prognostic biomarkers in primary cutaneous melanoma. Virchows Arch. 464:265–281. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
6	Elder DE, Bastian BC, Cree IA, Massi D and Scolyer RA: The 2018 World Health Organization classification of cutaneous, mucosal, and uveal melanoma: Detailed analysis of 9 distinct subtypes defined by their evolutionary pathway. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 144:500–522. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Fong L and Small EJ: Anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 antibody: The first in an emerging class of immunomodulatory antibodies for cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol. 26:5275–5283. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, Gonzalez R, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Hassel JC, et al: Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 363:711–723. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, Kluger HM, Carvajal RD, Sharfman WH, Brahmer JR, Lawrence DP, Atkins MB, Powderly JD, et al: Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 32:1020–1030. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
10	Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ, Arance A, Mandala M, Liszkay G, Garbe C, Schadendorf D, Krajsova I, Gutzmer R, et al: Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 19:603–615. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar
11	Bastian BC: The molecular pathology of melanoma: An integrated taxonomy of melanocytic neoplasia. Annu Rev Pathol. 9:239–271. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Park CK and Kim SK: Clinicopathological significance of intratumoral and peritumoral lymphocytes and lymphocyte score based on the histologic subtypes of cutaneous melanoma. Oncotarget. 8:14759–14769. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Maibach F, Sadozai H, Seyed Jafari SM, Hunger RE and Schenk M: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and their prognostic value in cutaneous melanoma. Front Immunol. 11:21052020. View Article : Google Scholar
14	Zablocka T, Nikolajeva A, Kreismane M, Pjanova D and Isajevs S: Addressing the importance of melanoma tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in disease progression and clinicopathological characteristics. Mol Clin Oncol. 15:2552021. View Article : Google Scholar
15	Cancer Genome Atlas Network, . Genomic classification of cutaneous melanoma. Cell. 161:1681–1696. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
16	Melis C, Rogiers A, Bechter O and van den Oord JJ: Molecular genetic and immunotherapeutic targets in metastatic melanoma. Virchows Arch. 471:281–293. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Pracht M, Mogha A, Lespagnol A, Fautrel A, Mouchet N, Le Gall F, Paumier V, Lefeuvre-Plesse C, Rioux-Leclerc N, Mosser J, et al: Prognostic and predictive values of oncogenic BRAF, NRAS, c-KIT and MITF in cutaneous and mucous melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 29:1530–1538. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Ny L, Hernberg M, Nyakas M, Koivunen J, Oddershede L, Yoon M, Wang X, Guyot P and Geisler J: BRAF mutational status as a prognostic marker for survival in malignant melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol. 59:833–844. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Rose EE, Egyházi S, Omholt K, Månsson-Brahme E, Platz A, Hansson J and Lundeberg J: NRAS and BRAF mutations in melanoma tumours in relation to clinical characteristics: A study based on mutation screening by pyrosequencing. Melanoma Res. 6:471–478. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Eigentler T, Assi Z, Hassel JC, Heinzerling L, Starz H, Berneburg M, Bauer J and Garbe C: Which melanoma patient carries a BRAF-mutation? A comparison of predictive models. Oncotarget. 7:36130–36137. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar
21	Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, Teague J, Woffendin H, Garnett MJ, Bottomley W, et al: Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 417:949–954. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Long GV, Menzies AM, Nagrial AM, Haydu LE, Hamilton AL, Mann GJ, Hughes TM, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA and Kefford RF: Prognostic and clinicopathologic associations of oncogenic BRAF in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 29:1239–1246. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
23	Ito T, Tanaka Y, Murata M, Kaku-Ito Y, Furue K and Furue M: BRAF heterogeneity in melanoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 22:202021. View Article : Google Scholar
24	Colebatch AJ, Ferguson P, Newell F, Kazakoff SH, Witkowski T, Dobrovic A, Johansson PA, Saw RPM, Stretch JR, McArthur GA, et al: Molecular genomic profiling of melanocytic nevi. J Invest Dermatol. 139:1762–1768. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Chiappetta C, Proietti I, Soccodato V, Puggioni C, Zaralli R, Pacini L, Porta N, Skroza N, Petrozza V, Potenza C, et al: BRAF and NRAS mutations are heterogeneous and not mutually exclusive in nodular melanoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 23:172–177. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
26	Thomas NE, Edmiston SN, Alexander A, Groben PA, Parrish E, Kricker A, Armstrong BK, Anton-Culver H, Gruber SB, From L, et al: Association between NRAS and BRAF mutational status and melanoma-specific survival among patients with higher-risk primary melanoma. JAMA Oncol. 1:359–368. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
27	Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Massari F, MacLennan GT and Montironi R: Molecular testing for BRAF mutations to inform melanoma treatment decisions: A move toward precision medicine. Mod Pathol. 31:24–38. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar
28	Tas F and Erturk K: Clinical and prognostic significance of BRAF V600E mutation in non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients. Neoplasma. 66:631–636. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar
29	Bezić J, Kuret S, Vrbičić B, Smolić J, Borić I, Škifić I, Ledina D and Božić J: Clinicopathological characteristics of BRAF V600E mutated melanomas in the dalmatian region of croatia. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 27:225–230. 2019.
30	Spathis A, Katoulis AC, Damaskou V, Liakou AI, Kottaridi C, Leventakou D, Sgouros D, Mamantopoulos A, Rigopoulos D, Karakitsos P and Panayiotides IG: BRAF mutation status in primary, recurrent, and metastatic malignant melanoma and its relation to histopathological parameters. Dermatol Pract Concept. 9:54–62. 2019.
31	Kim SY, Kim SN, Hahn HJ, Lee YW, Choe YB and Ahn KJ: Metaanalysis of BRAF mutations and clinicopathologic characteristics in primary melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 72:1036–1046.e2. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
32	Estrozi B, Machado J, Rodriguez R and Bacchi CE: Clinicopathologic findings and BRAF mutation in cutaneous melanoma in young adults. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 22:57–64. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
33	Aksenenko MB, Kirichenko AK and Ruksha TG: Russian study of morphological prognostic factors characterization in BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma. Pathol Res Pract. 211:521–527. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
34	Platz A, Egyhazi S, Ringborg U and Hansson J: Human cutaneous melanoma; a review of NRAS and BRAF mutation frequencies in relation to histogenetic subclass and body site. Mol Oncol. 1:395–405. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
35	Weiss SA, Han SW, Lui L, Tchack J, Shapiro R, Berman R, Zhong J, Krogsgaard M, Osman I and Darvishian F: Immunologic heterogeneity of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte composition in primary melanoma. Hum Pathol. 57:116–125. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar
36	Leslie C, Bowyer SE, White A, Grieu-Iacopetta F, Trevenen M, Iacopetta B, Amanuel B and Millward M: FOXP3+ T regulatory lymphocytes in primary melanoma are associated with BRAF mutation but not with response to BRAF inhibitor. Pathology. 47:557–563. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Jakob JA, Bassett RL Jr, Ng CS, Curry JL, Joseph RW, Alvarado GC, Rohlfs ML, Richard J, Gershenwald JE, Kim KB, et al: NRAS mutation status is an independent prognostic factor in metastatic melanoma. Cancer. 118:4014–4023. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Lee JH, Choi JW and Kim YS: Frequencies of BRAF and NRAS mutations are different in histological types and sites of origin of cutaneous melanoma: A meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 164:776–784. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
39	Ugurel S, Thirumaran RK, Bloethner S, Gast A, Sucker A, Mueller-Berghaus J, Rittgen W, Hemminki K, Becker JC, Kumar R and Schadendorf D: B-RAF and N-RAS mutations are preserved during short time in vitro propagation and differentially impact prognosis. PLoS One. 2:e2362007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Devitt B, Liu W, Salemi R, Wolfe R, Kelly J, Tzen CY, Dobrovic A and McArthur G: Clinical outcome and pathological features associated with NRAS mutation in cutaneous melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 24:666–672. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
41	Heppt MV, Siepmann T, Engel J, Schubert-Fritschle G, Eckel R, Mirlach L, Kirchner T, Jung A, Gesierich A, Ruzicka T, et al: Prognostic significance of BRAF and NRAS mutations in melanoma: A German study from routine care. BMC Cancer. 17:5362017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
42	Ellerhorst JA, Greene VR, Ekmekcioglu S, Warneke CL, Johnson MM, Cooke CP, Wang LE, Prieto VG, Gershenwald JE, Wei Q and Grimm EA: Clinical correlates of NRAS and BRAF mutations in primary human melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 17:229–235. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
43	Schlaak M, Bajah A, Podewski T, Kreuzberg N, von Bartenwerffer W, Wardelmann E, Merkelbach-Bruse S, Büttner R, Mauch C and Kurschat P: Assessment of clinical parameters associated with mutational status in metastatic malignant melanoma: A single-centre investigation of 141 patients. Br J Dermatol. 168:708–716. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
44	Bucheit AD, Syklawer E, Jakob JA, Bassett RL Jr, Curry JL, Gershenwald JE, Kim KB, Hwu P, Lazar AJ and Davies MA: Clinical characteristics and outcomes with specific BRAF and NRAS mutations in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer. 119:3821–3829. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Grimaldi AM, Simeone E, Festino L, Vanella V, Strudel M and Ascierto PA: MEK inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic melanoma and solid tumors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 18:745–754. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar