Spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms are a diagnostically challenging class of lesions in dermatopathology. Recently, molecular assays and immunohistochemical markers have been explored as ancillary methods to assist in the diagnostic workup. Specifically, preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemistry is a nuclear stain commonly positive in melanomas, but not in nevi. This study investigates PRAME immunoreactivity ($75% positive nuclear staining in tumor cells) in a set of 59 spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms with known clinical outcomes. We compared PRAME status with (1) the clinical outcomes, (2) the morphologic diagnoses, and (3) the status of TERT promoter mutation. Regarding clinical outcomes, 3 cases developed metastatic disease, of which 2 expressed diffusely positive PRAME staining. Of the 56 cases that did not show evidence of metastasis, 6 expressed diffusely positive PRAME staining. Morphologically, diffusely positive PRAME staining was seen in 7 of 21 cases (33.3%) diagnosed as melanoma and only 1 benign tumor 1 of 38 (2.6%). There were 4 of 8 cases with a TERT promoter mutation which were diffusely PRAME-positive compared with 4 of 51 cases without TERT promoter mutation (P = 0.001). Our results show a statistically significant correlation between PRAME expression and the diagnosis, outcome, and TERT promoter mutation status of atypical spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms, suggesting immunohistochemistry for PRAME can help support a suspected diagnosis. However, because of occasional false-positive and negative test results, correlation with the clinical and histologic findings as well as results from other tests is needed for the interpretation of diagnostically challenging spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms.

Desmoplastic melanomas (DMs) are often challenging to diagnose and ancillary tests, such as immunohistochemistry, have limitations. One challenge is distinguishing DM from benign desmoplastic melanocytic neoplasms. In this study, we explored the utility of next-generation sequencing data in the diagnosis of DMs versus desmoplastic Spitz nevi (DSN) and desmoplastic nevi (DN). We sequenced 47 cases and retrieved 12 additional previously sequenced clinical cases from our dermatopathology database. The 59 total cases were comprised of 21 DMs, 25 DSN, and 13 DN. The DMs had the highest tumor mutation burden at 22 mutations/megabase (m/Mb) versus the DSN (6 m/Mb) and DN (8 m/Mb). Truncating mutations in NF1 resulting in a loss-of-function were exclusive to the DM cohort, identified in 8/21 (38%) cases. Importantly, missense mutations in NF1 were nonspecific and seen with similar frequency in the different cohorts. Other mutations exclusive to the DMs included truncating mutations in TP53, CDKN2A, and ARID2. Among the DSN, 17/25 (68%) had an HRAS mutation or receptor tyrosine kinase fusion consistent with other Spitz tumors. Two cases in the DN cohort had missense mutations in BRAF without additional progression mutations and 2 other cases had mutations in GNAQ, supporting a diagnosis of a sclerosing blue nevus. The remainder of the DN had nonspecific mutations in various signaling pathways with few progression mutations. Overall, our study provides preliminary data that next-generation sequencing data may have the potential to serve as an ancillary diagnostic tool to help differentiate malignant and benign desmoplastic melanocytic neoplasms.

Patients with early-stage disease typically have a good prognosis, but still have a risk of recurrence, even with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). This study explores the utility of routine imaging to detect metastases in patients with negative SLNB but high-risk 31 gene expression profile (31-GEP) scores. We retrospectively identified melanoma patients with negative SLNBs. Patients with high-risk GEP results were placed in the experimental group and patients without GEP testing were placed in the control group. Among both cohorts, recurrent melanoma groups were identified. The tumor burden at the time of recurrence and the time to recurrence were compared between experimental group patients with routine imaging and control group patients without imaging schedules. We identified 327 control patients and 307 experimental patients, of which 14.1% versus 20.5% had melanoma recurrence, respectively. Of the patients with recurrent melanoma, those in the experimental group were older (65.75 versus 59.20), had higher Breslow depths (3.72 mm versus 3.31 mm), and had advanced tumor staging (89.5% versus 71.4% of patients presenting clinical stage ≥ II) compared to the control group at primary diagnosis. However, melanoma recurrence was detected earlier (25.50 months versus 35.35 months) in the experimental group at a lower overall tumor burden (73.10 mm versus 27.60 mm). A higher percentage of experimental patients started immunotherapy when offered (76.3% and 67.9%). Patients who received routine imaging after high-risk GEP test scores had an earlier recurrence diagnosis with lower tumor burden, leading to better clinical outcomes.

Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutations (TPMs) have been shown to be common in melanoma and uncommon in benign nevi. To assess the use of TPMs as an ancillary diagnostic tool, we report the concordance of the TPM status with the final diagnosis in clinical cases with distinct differential diagnostic scenarios: dysplastic nevus versus melanoma, atypical Spitz nevus versus melanoma, atypical deep penetrating nevus (DPN) versus melanoma, and atypical blue nevus versus malignant blue nevus. In a control cohort, we found a positive TPM in 51/70 (73%) of the total melanomas with the highest frequency in vertical growth phase melanoma cases. Conversely, only 2/35 (6%) dysplastic nevi in our control cases were TPM-positive and b were severely atypical dysplastic nevi. Our clinical cohort of 257 cases had a positive TPM in 24% of cases diagnosed as melanoma and in 1% of cases with a benign diagnosis. The overall concordance of the TPM status with the final diagnosis was 86%. The TPM status had the greatest concordance (95%) with the final diagnosis in the atypical DPN versus melanoma group, with the rest of the groups ranging between 50% and 88%. Overall, our results suggest that TPMs are most useful in the differential diagnosis of atypical DPN versus melanoma. It also has some value in the differential diagnosis of atypical Spitz tumor versus melanoma and dysplastic nevus versus melanoma, whereas in our cohort, it did not contribute meaningfully to differentiating malignant blue nevus and atypical blue nevus.