Acta ophthalmologica · 2013
C-Kit SCF receptor (CD117) expression and KIT gene mutation in conjunctival pigmented lesions.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Alessandrini Lara, Parrozzani Raffaele, Bertorelle Roberta, Valentini Elisa, Candiotto Cinzia, Giacomelli Luciano, Midena Edoardo, Blandamura Stella
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the presence of KIT gene mutations and immunoreactivity in 85 conjunctival melanocytic tumours and to clarify the role of KIT as a potential therapeutic target in this group of patients.
METHODS: Eighty-five conjunctival pigmented tumours [27 melanomas, 12 primary acquired melanosis (PAMs) and 46 nevi] were immunostained for KIT. Intensity and pattern of expression were evaluated. Molecular analysis to identify KIT mutations was performed in 15 selected cases (tumour-rich areas >50%). KIT immunostaining score and pattern were statistically related to patients' age, sex, diagnostic category, presence of relapse, disease-free survival, presence of metastases, metastasis-free survival, limbal versus nonlimbal tumour location and thickness of melanomas.
RESULTS: KIT stains were documented in 48% of melanomas, 50% of PAMs and 24% of nevi. The mean score of KIT staining in the melanomas/PAMs group was significantly different from nevi (p = 0.0076). No statistically significant differences were detected between either c-kit immunostaining score or pattern and each of the other clinico-pathologic parameters considered. No KIT gene mutations were detected in melanomas and nevi. A silent mutation/polymorphism in KIT exon 13 was found in one PAM.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high level of KIT immunostains in PAMs and melanomas, this parameter seems not to be a good predictor of the presence of molecular mutations. KIT-activating mutations should be considered an uncommon event in this tumour.
METHODS: Eighty-five conjunctival pigmented tumours [27 melanomas, 12 primary acquired melanosis (PAMs) and 46 nevi] were immunostained for KIT. Intensity and pattern of expression were evaluated. Molecular analysis to identify KIT mutations was performed in 15 selected cases (tumour-rich areas >50%). KIT immunostaining score and pattern were statistically related to patients' age, sex, diagnostic category, presence of relapse, disease-free survival, presence of metastases, metastasis-free survival, limbal versus nonlimbal tumour location and thickness of melanomas.
RESULTS: KIT stains were documented in 48% of melanomas, 50% of PAMs and 24% of nevi. The mean score of KIT staining in the melanomas/PAMs group was significantly different from nevi (p = 0.0076). No statistically significant differences were detected between either c-kit immunostaining score or pattern and each of the other clinico-pathologic parameters considered. No KIT gene mutations were detected in melanomas and nevi. A silent mutation/polymorphism in KIT exon 13 was found in one PAM.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high level of KIT immunostains in PAMs and melanomas, this parameter seems not to be a good predictor of the presence of molecular mutations. KIT-activating mutations should be considered an uncommon event in this tumour.