DOI 10.1016/j.humpath.2024.04.014
Primary leptomeningeal melanocytic neoplasms: A clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular study of 12 cases.
Аннотация
This study investigated the clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features of primary leptomeningeal melanocytic neoplasms (LMNs). Twelve LMN cases were retrospectively reviewed. We performed Fluorescence in-situ hybridization (including a 4-probe FISH assay with CDKN2A and MYC assay) and Next-Generation sequencing analyses on available cases. Histologically, 2 tumours were classified as melanocytomas (MC), 2 as intermediate-grade melanocytomas (IMC), and 8 as leptomeningeal melanomas (LMM). Two rare cases of LMM were associated with large plaque-like blue nevus. One MC case was associated with Ota. Ten cases (83.3%) showed melanocytic cells with benign features diffusely proliferating within the meninges. The Ki-67 in three categories differed (MC 0-1%, IMC 0-3%, LMM 3-10%). 57.1% of LMM cases (4/7) were positive for FISH. Nine of 10 tumours harboured activating hotspot mutations in GNAQ, GNA11, or PLCB4. Additional mutations of EIF1AX, SF3B1, or BAP1 were found in 40%, 30%, and 10% of tumours, respectively. During the follow-up (median = 43 months), 5 LMM patients experienced recurrence and/or metastasis, 3 of them died of the disease and the other 2 are alive with the tumour. Our study is by far the first cohort of LMN cases tested by FISH. In addition to morphological indicators including necrosis and mitotic figures, using a combination of Ki-67 and FISH helps to differentiate between IMC and LMM, especially in LMM cases with less pleomorphic features. SF3B1 mutation is first described in 2 cases of plaque-type blue nevus associated with LMM. Patients with SF3B1 mutation might be related to poor prognosis in LMN.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.