Immunophenotype of Conjunctival Melanomas

Iwamoto, Satori; Burrows, Robert C.; Grossniklaus, Hans E.; Orcutt, James C.; Kalina, Robert E.; Boehm, Michael D.; Bothwell, Mark; Schmidt, Rodney A.

doi:10.1001/archopht.120.12.1625

Cited by 41 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others also found higher expression of S100B in conjunctival melanoma than in uveal melanoma. 12 13 Iwamoto claims that conjunctival melanoma is most similar to the epithelioid phenotype of the cutaneous melanoma. 13 Table 1 compares the S100A1, S100A6, and S100B data from this study with data on cutaneous melanoma in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Immunophenotypic markers might be of help in distinguishing between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions of the conjunctiva. Previous studies addressed S100, MelanA, and HMB45 expression in conjunctival melanoma, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and a few studies compared expression patterns on conjunctival naevus or PAM with conjunctival melanoma. [14][15][16][17] Although most markers have proved to be of value in the establishment of the melanocytic origin of various lesions, they are of much less help in the distinction between a melanocytic naevus and a melanoma.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immunophenotypic markers to differentiate between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions

Keijser

Missotten

Bonfrèr

et al. 2006

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/aims: The authors investigated the expression of S100A1, S100A6, S100B, MelanA, and CEA in conjunctival naevi, primary acquired melanosis (PAM), conjunctival melanoma, and uveal melanoma in order to assess their potential usefulness in the pathological differential diagnosis of these entities. Methods: Paraffin embedded sections of 18 conjunctival naevi, 14 PAM, 16 conjunctival melanomas, and 20 uveal melanomas were immunostained for S100A1, S100A6, S100B, MelanA, and CEA, and expression was scored semiquantitatively. Results: Expression of S100A1 differed significantly between conjunctival naevi and conjunctival melanoma, with percentages of positive cells of 30.6% and 71.4%, respectively. Conjunctival melanomas had high average scores for S100A1 and S100B (71.4%, 62.9%, respectively), while uveal melanomas also had high S100A1 but low S100B scores (88.5%, 18.5%, respectively). MelanA was highly variable; naevi and uveal melanoma had higher average scores than conjunctival melanoma. CEA was hardly detectable in all four groups. Conclusion: S100A1 seems to be a possible candidate to differentiate conjunctival naevi from conjunctival melanoma. S100B seems to differentiate between uveal melanoma and conjunctival melanoma. However, the study size was small and therefore the data have to be confirmed by others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunophenotypic markers to differentiate between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions

Keijser

Missotten

Bonfrèr

et al. 2006

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A case-control study 33 of 109 UM patients and 149 controls demonstrated an increased number of clinically atypical nevi in those with UM (for 3 or more atypical nevi vs. none, odds ratio [OR] ϭ 5.1; 95% CI ϭ 1. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. A population-based case-control study 6 of 290 cases found that greater than 10 nevi on the back was a risk factor for UM (vs. none, OR ϭ 1.5; 95% CI ϭ 1.0 -2.3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also report on the incidence of melanomas of the conjunctiva separately: Although these are ocular melanomas, their histologic and immunocytochemical characteristics are more similar to CM than to UM. 14 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of uveal and cutaneous malignant melanoma in persons with multiple primary tumors

Shors

Iwamoto

Doody

et al. 2002

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uveal and cutaneous melanomas differ in tumor biology, immunophenotypes and the demographic correlates of their occurrence. As a means to examine the possibility of some shared etiologic factors, we wished to learn if the 2 cancers occurred in the same individual more often than would be expected by chance. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program from 1973-1998 were utilized for this purpose. The number of persons who went on to develop a second melanoma was compared to that expected based on the incidence of each type of melanoma in the general population, after adjusting for age, sex, calendar year and residence. Given an initial cutaneous melanoma, there was a 10-fold increased risk of developing a second cutaneous melanoma (95% confidence interval [CI] ‫؍‬ 9.4 -10.6). Persons with uveal melanoma went on to develop cutaneous melanoma 4.6 times (95% CI ‫؍‬ 2.9 -6.8) more often than the population at large. In contrast, persons with cutaneous melanoma were not subsequently diagnosed with uveal melanoma at an appreciably elevated rate (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] ‫؍‬ 1.4; 95% CI ‫؍‬ 0.5-3.0). While these data offer some support for the hypothesis that uveal and cutaneous melanomas have 1 or more etiologies in common, the lack of symmetry in the pattern of second uveal and second cutaneous melanomas remains unexplained. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Key words: uveal melanoma; cutaneous melanoma; SEER; second cancerDespite originating from a common precursor cell, uveal melanomas (UMs, primary melanomas of the iris, ciliary body and choroid) and cutaneous melanomas (CMs) exhibit several notable differences. Although both are relatively uncommon, UM occurs far less frequently. 1 In addition, incidence and mortality rates of UM have been stable in worldwide registries from 1950 -1980, while rates of CM have increased during that same time period. 2 Although risk factors such as skin color and eye color may be shared, 3-6 the effect of environmental risk factors such as sunlight appears to be different. 1,4,[7][8][9] Biologically, UMs metastasize hematogenously, involving the liver most frequently, 10 while CMs most often involve the regional lymph nodes. 11 Recent immunolabeling studies 12,13 have shown that common melanoma-associated antigens are expressed differently in the 2 cancers.As another means of evaluating the possibility of shared etiologic factors between UM and CM, we sought to learn whether the two tumors occurred in the same person more frequently than would be expected by chance. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry collects data on incidence, survival and subsequent primary cancers. We utilized this database to examine the incidence of UM and CM as second primary cancers. We also report on the incidence of melanomas of the conjunctiva separately: Although these are ocular melanomas, their histologic and immunocytochemical characteristics are more similar to CM than to UM. 14 MATERIAL AND METHODSSince 1973, the National Cancer Institu...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, serum levels of S100 can also serve as a prognostic marker in skin melanoma [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Other pigment markers that have been assessed with regard to their labeling of skin melanoma, CM, or UM are tyrosinase, p75 NTR (p75 neurotrophin receptor), HMB (human melanoma black)-45, HMB-50, melan-A, and microphthalmia-associated transcription factor [34,36]. While p75 NTR has been found to exclusively label skin melanoma cells, the remaining pigment markers were shown to label skin melanoma cells as well as CM and UM [34,36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic BRAF/MEK Inhibitors as a Potential Treatment Option in Metastatic Conjunctival Melanoma

Mor

Heindl

2016

Ocul Oncol Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: In this review, we outline similarities between conjunctival and skin melanoma as well as the effectiveness of combined BRAF/MEK inhibition in melanoma, and discuss the applicability of these agents in conjunctival melanoma. Methods: The study provides a PubMed literature review. Results: Conjunctival melanoma and skin melanoma are genetically and phenotypically related. Both tumors typically harbor BRAF mutations in more than 50% of cases. New targeted therapies in metastatic skin melanoma include selective inhibition of BRAF and MEK. Combined BRAF/MEK inhibition has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic skin melanoma, significantly improving patients' prognoses. While these new substances have been investigated extensively in the treatment of skin melanoma, comparable studies in conjunctival melanoma do not exist owing to the rarity of the malignancy. Conclusions: The application of combined BRAF/MEK inhibition in metastatic or unresectable conjunctival melanoma shows great potential for improving patients' prognoses. Future studies are needed to investigate the assumed benefit.

show abstract

Immunophenotype of Conjunctival Melanomas

Cited by 41 publications

References 24 publications

Immunophenotypic markers to differentiate between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions

Immunophenotypic markers to differentiate between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions

Relationship of uveal and cutaneous malignant melanoma in persons with multiple primary tumors

Systemic BRAF/MEK Inhibitors as a Potential Treatment Option in Metastatic Conjunctival Melanoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About