Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36261329›Full record

ArticleJournal of cutaneous pathology2023

Combined utility of p16 and BRAF V600E in the evaluation of spitzoid tumors: Superiority to PRAME and correlation with FISH.

John L McAfee, Richard Scarborough, Xuefei Sophia Jia, Elizabeth M Azzato, Caroline Astbury, Shira Ronen, Aleodor A Andea, Steven D Billings, Jennifer S Ko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cutaneous pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. PRAME Updated: Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Role in Skin Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

John L McAfeeDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7645-631X
Richard ScarboroughAffiliated Dermatology, Dublin, Ohio, USA.
Xuefei Sophia JiaQuantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Elizabeth M AzzatoDepartment of Molecular Pathology and Cytogenetics, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Caroline AstburyDepartment of Molecular Pathology and Cytogenetics, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Shira RonenDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Aleodor A AndeaDepartment of Molecular Genetic Pathology and Dermatopathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Steven D BillingsDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2278-5908
Jennifer S KoDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0629-775X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpitzoid melanocytic neoplasms are diagnostically challenging; criteria for malignancy continue to evolve. The ability to predict chromosomal abnormalities with immunohistochemistry (IHC) could help select cases requiring chromosomal evaluation.

methodsFluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-tested spitzoid neoplasms at our institution (2013-2021) were reviewed. p16, BRAF V600E, and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) IHC results were correlated with FISH.

resultsA total of 174 cases (1.9F:1M, median age 28 years; range, 5 months-74 years) were included; final diagnoses: Spitz nevus (11%), atypical Spitz tumor (47%), spitzoid dysplastic nevus (9%), and spitzoid melanoma (32%). Sixty (34%) were FISH positive, most commonly with absolute 6p25 gain (RREB1 > 2). Dermal mitotic count was the only clinicopathologic predictor of FISH. Among IHC-stained cases, p16 was lost in 55 of 134 cases (41%); loss correlated with FISH positive (p < 0.001, Fisher exact test). BRAF V600E (14/88, 16%) and PRAME (15/56, 27%) expression did not correlate with FISH alone (p = 0.242 and p = 0.359, respectively, Fisher exact test). When examined together, however, p16-retained/BRAF V600E-negative lesions had low FISH-positive rates (5/37, 14%; 4/37, 11% not counting isolated MYB loss); all other marker combinations had high rates (56%-75% of cases; p < 0.001).

conclusionsp16/BRAF V600E IHC predicts FISH results. "Low-risk" lesions (p16

Indexed as

MelanomaNevus, Epithelioid and Spindle CellSkin NeoplasmsAntigens, NeoplasmChromosome AberrationsDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafAntigens, NeoplasmBRAF protein, humanPRAME protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAFFISHmalignantp16PRAMESpitz

Identifiers

PMID36261329
PMCPMC10099989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.