Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2024
Clinical implication of PRAME immunohistochemistry in differentiating melanoma in situ and dysplastic nevus in non-acral nevus-associated melanoma in situ: An institutional experience and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bui Chau M, Vuong Huy Gia, Le Minh-Khang, D'Angelo Josephine, Mannava Kathleen, Smoller Bruce R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) has shown utility in differentiating benign from malignant melanocytic neoplasms. In this study, we investigated the clinical significance of PRAME expression in dysplastic nevi (DN) and nevus-associated melanoma in situ (MIS).
METHODS: We included 172 DN and 38 nevus-associated MIS from our institutional archive. PRAME positive expression was defined as nuclear staining in at least 75% of melanocytes. In addition, relevant studies from PubMed and Web of Science were incorporated into a meta-analysis using the random-effects model to assess PRAME expression in MIS and DN.
RESULTS: Our institutional data revealed that 71.1% of nevus-associated MIS cases exhibited positive PRAME expression in the MIS components, whereas all DN components were negative for PRAME. 5.7% of cases diagnosed as DN in our cohort demonstrated diffuse positivity for PRAME. Notably, MIS associated with DN displaying epidermal and dermal components displayed a higher likelihood of PRAME positivity compared to those arising on a background of DN with solely epidermal (junctional) components (84% vs. 46%, p = 0.024). The meta-analysis indicated that the pooled PRAME positivity in MIS and DN was 54.5% and 1.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PRAME is a valuable immunohistochemical marker for differentiating MIS from DN, particularly in the context of nevus-associated MIS.
METHODS: We included 172 DN and 38 nevus-associated MIS from our institutional archive. PRAME positive expression was defined as nuclear staining in at least 75% of melanocytes. In addition, relevant studies from PubMed and Web of Science were incorporated into a meta-analysis using the random-effects model to assess PRAME expression in MIS and DN.
RESULTS: Our institutional data revealed that 71.1% of nevus-associated MIS cases exhibited positive PRAME expression in the MIS components, whereas all DN components were negative for PRAME. 5.7% of cases diagnosed as DN in our cohort demonstrated diffuse positivity for PRAME. Notably, MIS associated with DN displaying epidermal and dermal components displayed a higher likelihood of PRAME positivity compared to those arising on a background of DN with solely epidermal (junctional) components (84% vs. 46%, p = 0.024). The meta-analysis indicated that the pooled PRAME positivity in MIS and DN was 54.5% and 1.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PRAME is a valuable immunohistochemical marker for differentiating MIS from DN, particularly in the context of nevus-associated MIS.