Spitzoid neoplasms are a distinct group of melanocytic proliferations characterized by epithelioid and/ or spindle shaped melanocytes. Intermediate forms that share features of both benign Spitz nevi (SN) and Spitz melanoma, i.e., malignant Spitz tumor (MST) represent a diagnostically and clinically challenging group of melanocytic lesions. A multitude of descriptive diagnostic terms exist for these ambiguous lesions with atypical Spitz tumor (AST) or Spitz tumor of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) just naming two of them. This diagnostic gray zone creates confusion and high insecurity in clinicians and in patients. Biological behavior and clinical course of this intermediate group still remains largely unknown, often leading to difficulties with uncertainties in clinical management and prognosis. Consequently, a better stratification of Spitzoid neoplasms in benign and malignant forms is required thereby keeping the diagnostic group of AST/STUMP as small as possible. Ancillary diagnostic techniques such as immunohistochemistry, comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, next generation sequencing, micro RNA and mRNA analysis as well as mass spectrometry imaging offer new opportunities for the distinct diagnosis, thereby allowing the best clinical management of Spitzoid neoplasms. This review gives an overview on these additional diagnostic techniques and the recent developments in the field of molecular genetic alterations in Spitzoid neoplasms. We also discuss how the recent findings might facilitate the diagnosis and stratification of atypical Spitzoid neoplasms and how these findings will impact the diagnostic work up as well as patient management. We suggest a stepwise implementation of ancillary diagnostic techniques thereby integrating immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology findings in the diagnosis of challenging ambiguous Spitzoid neoplasms. Finally, we will give an outlook on pending future research objectives in the field of Spitzoid melanocytic lesions.

Over the past decades, melanoma-related mortality has remained nearly stable. The main reason is treatment failure of metastatic disease and the inherently linked knowledge gap regarding metastasis formation. In order to elicit invasion, melanoma cells manipulate the tumor microenvironment, gain motility, and adhere to the extracellular matrix and cancer-associated fibroblasts. Melanoma cells thereby express different cell adhesion molecules like laminins, integrins, N-cadherin, and others. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is physiological during embryologic development, but reactivated during malignancy. Despite not being truly epithelial, neural crest-derived malignancies like melanoma share similar biological programs that enable tumorigenesis, invasion, and metastasis. This complex phenomenon is termed phenotype switching and is intertwined with oncometabolism as well as dormancy escape. Additionally, it has been shown that primary melanoma shed exosomes that create a favorable premetastatic niche in the microenvironment of secondary organs and lymph nodes. Although the growing body of literature describes the aforementioned concepts separately, an integrative holistic approach is missing. Using melanoma as a tumor model, this review will shed light on these complex biological principles in an attempt to clarify the mechanistic metastatic pathways that dictate tumor and patient fate.

Diagnosing a pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasm (NEN) may be difficult, challenging clinical decision making. In this review, the following key clinical and pathologic issues and informative molecular markers are being discussed: (1) What is the preferred outcome parameter for curatively resected low-grade NENs (carcinoid), for example, overall survival or recurrence-free interval? (2) Does the WHO classification combined with a Ki-67 proliferation index and molecular markers, such as OTP and CD44, offer improved prognostication in low-grade NENs? (3) What is the value of a typical versus atypical carcinoid diagnosis on a biopsy specimen in local and metastatic disease? Diagnosis is difficult in biopsy specimens and recent observations of an increased mitotic rate in metastatic carcinoid from typical to atypical and high-grade NEN can further complicate diagnosis. (4) What is the (ir)relevance of morphologically separating large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) SCLC and the value of molecular markers (RB1 gene and pRb protein or transcription factors NEUROD1, ASCL1, POU2F3, or YAP1 [NAPY]) to predict systemic treatment outcome? (5) Are additional diagnostic criteria required to accurately separate LCNEC from NSCLC in biopsy specimens? Neuroendocrine morphology can be absent owing to limited sample size leading to missed LCNEC diagnoses. Evaluation of genomic studies on LCNEC and marker studies have identified that a combination of napsin A and neuroendocrine markers could be helpful. Hence, to improve clinical practice, we should consider to adjust our NEN classification incorporating prognostic and predictive markers applicable on biopsy specimens to inform a treatment outcome-driven classification.

No abstract

No abstract