Evaluation of PRAME immunohistochemistry in cutaneous vascular neoplasms reveals frequent expression in primary and post-irradiation cutaneous angiosarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) has been extensively studied in cutaneous melanocytic tumors and has proven valuable as a diagnostic adjunct in routine dermatopathology practice. However, its expression in cutaneous vascular neoplasms, particularly angiosarcomas (AS), remains largely unexplored. METHODS: To further explore PRAME expression in cutaneous AS, 18 cases of post-irradiation and 13 cases of primary cutaneous AS were evaluated for PRAME. For comparison, sections from 11 deep soft tissue/visceral AS, 10 Kaposi sarcomas, 8 microvenular hemangiomas, 7 infantile hemangiomas, 8 atypical vascular lesions, 6 epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas, 6 pyogenic granulomas, 6 papillary endothelial hyperplasias, 6 epithelioid hemangiomas, 3 capillovenous malformations, 3 hobnail hemangiomas, 2 spindle cell hemangiomas, 2 pseudomyogenic hemangioendotheliomas, and 2 composite hemangioendotheliomas were also retrieved. RESULTS: Overall, 22 of 31 (70.9%; 12 post-irradiation and 10 primary) cutaneous AS were positive for PRAME. In contrast, only 1 of 11 (9.1%) deep soft tissue/visceral AS showed diffuse and strong PRAME nuclear staining. All other tumor types were negative for PRAME, except for 5 of 7 (71.4%) infantile hemangiomas, which demonstrated rare (<5%; four cases) and 1+ (5-25%; one case) nuclear staining. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we have demonstrated frequent nuclear PRAME expression in cutaneous AS. PRAME immunohistochemistry may serve as a valuable additional marker in selected clinical settings.

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.

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.

Metastatic triple-negative breast carcinoma mimicking melanoma: A potential diagnostic pitfall.

Melanoma, with its diverse histopathologic characteristics, can mimic both benign nevi and neoplasms of various cell lineages. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) can play a vital role in melanoma diagnosis, particularly when the cell lineage is unclear on hematoxylin and eosin sections. Commonly utilized IHC stains for melanoma diagnosis include SOX10, Melan-A, and S100. A relatively novel stain, PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME), is also proving useful in accurate melanoma diagnosis. However, none of these stains are completely specific to melanocytes or melanoma, and misinterpretation can lead to incorrect diagnoses. This report presents a unique case of triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC) metastatic to the skin exhibiting histopathologic characteristics similar to melanoma, including positivity for SOX10 and PRAME. Our aim is to highlight TNBC metastatic to the skin as a potential diagnostic pitfall.

PRAME Updated: Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Role in Skin Cancer.

Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME), a member of the cancer/testis antigen family, is central to the field of skin cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. As a nuclear receptor and transcriptional regulator, PRAME plays a critical role in inhibiting retinoic acid signalling, which is essential for cell differentiation and proliferation. Its aberrant overexpression in various malignancies, particularly cutaneous melanoma, is associated with more aggressive tumour phenotypes, positioning PRAME as both a diagnostic and prognostic marker. In melanoma, PRAME is typically highly expressed, in contrast to its weak or absent expression in benign nevi, thereby improving the accuracy of differential diagnoses. The diagnostic value of PRAME extends to various lesions. It is significantly expressed in uveal melanoma, correlating to an increased risk of metastasis. In acral melanomas, especially those with histopathological ambiguity, PRAME helps to improve diagnostic accuracy. However, its expression in spitzoid and ungual melanocytic lesions is inconsistent and requires a comprehensive approach for an accurate assessment. In soft tissue sarcomas, PRAME may be particularly helpful in differentiating melanoma from clear cell sarcoma, an important distinction due to their similar histological appearance but different treatment approaches and prognosis, or in detecting dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas. In non-melanoma skin cancers such as basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma, the variable expression of PRAME can lead to diagnostic complexity. Despite these challenges, the potential of PRAME as a therapeutic target in melanoma is significant. Emerging immunotherapies, including T-cell-based therapies and vaccines targeting PRAME, are being investigated to exploit its cancer-specific expression. Ongoing research into the molecular role and mechanism of action of PRAME in skin cancer continues to open new avenues in both diagnostics and therapeutics, with the potential to transform the management of melanoma and related skin cancers.

MAGE-B4, a binding partner of PRAMEF12, is dispensable for spermatogenesis and male fertility in mice.

Melanoma antigen (MAGE)-B4 belongs to the MAGE-B family genes, which are located on the X chromosome. The MAGE-B family genes are classified as cancer-testis antigens, as they are primarily expressed in the testis and are aberrantly expressed in most cancers. Although a no-stop mutation in MAGE-B4 causes rare X-linked azoospermia and oligozoospermia phenotype in humans, the specific function of MAGE-B4 on spermatogenesis in mice remains unclear. In this study, we identified MAGE-B4 as a binding partner of PRAME family member 12, which plays an important role in the maintenance of mouse spermatogenic lineage in juvenile testes. Additionally, we found that Mage-b4 transcripts were restricted to the testis and that Mage-b4 was specifically expressed in spermatogonia. To explore the function of MAGE-B4 in spermatogenesis, we generated a Mage-b4 knockout (KO) mouse model using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. However, we found that Mage-b4 KO males displayed normal testicular morphology and fertility. Further histological analysis revealed that all stages of spermatogenic cells were present in the seminiferous tubules of the Mage-b4 KO mice. Altogether, our data suggest that Mage-b4 is dispensable for mouse spermatogenesis and male fertility.

Prognostic Value of BAP1 and Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME) Immunohistochemistry in Uveal Melanomas.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults, and despite excellent local control, more than 50% of patients develop and die from metastatic disease. Loss of BAP1 nuclear staining, a surrogate marker of BAP1 mutation, and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) messenger RNA overexpression, as assessed using qPCR, have previously been shown to correlate with increased metastasis rate in UM. In this study, we demonstrated that UM could be successfully risk-stratified using a combination of BAP1 and PRAME immunohistochemical (IHC) stains. We retrospectively reviewed 318 UM cases with sufficient tissue and performed BAP1 and PRAME IHC to stratify them as BAP1+/PRAME- (group 1, n = 135), BAP1+/PRAME+ (group 2, n = 43), BAP1-/PRAME- (group 3, n = 94), and BAP1-/PRAME+ (group 4, n = 46). Increasing the study risk group on the basis of loss of BAP1 expression and positive PRAME staining was associated with a higher rate of metastasis and disease-specific death and lower metastasis-free survival (MFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Among tumors with loss of BAP1 staining, PRAME positivity was associated with shorter MFS (P = .018) and showed a trend toward shorter DSS (P = .061). Among tumors with retained BAP1 staining, PRAME positivity was associated with shorter MFS and DSS (P = .001 and P = .021, respectively). In summary, a combination of BAP1 and PRAME IHC can be used for risk stratification of UMs.

Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of PRAME in distinguishing primary cutaneous melanomas from benign melanocytic lesions.

PRAME is a novel immunohistochemical marker that aids the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions. Diffuse PRAME positivity suggests melanoma, whereas benign naevi are negative or only weakly positive. However, the factual diagnostic accuracy of PRAME is not well established. Moreover, some studies have suggested that the threshold of 3+/50% positive cells may be more useful in practice than the most widely used cut-off (4+/75% of positive cells). Hence, we performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis to evaluate sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and optimal threshold for PRAME in distinguishing benign melanocytic proliferations from melanomas. Twenty-six studies were enrolled into the meta-analysis. A total of 2915 melanocytic lesions were analysed. The optimal threshold for PRAME positivity was estimated at 3.11, which translates into 3+ in practice. Sensitivity and specificity calculated from SROC at the 3+ threshold were 0.735 (0.631-0.818) and 0.915 (0.834-0.958), respectively, compared to 0.679 (0.559-0.957) and 0.957 (0.908-0.981) at the 4+ cut-off. In subgroup analysis, the spitzoid subgroup was characterised by the lowest sensitivity and diagnostic odds ratio of PRAME. Our findings indicate that PRAME immunohistochemistry may serve as an ancillary marker to support the diagnosis of melanoma. Nevertheless, the accuracy of PRAME may be lower in spitzoid neoplasms. Our meta-analysis suggests that the 3+/50% threshold might be more useful in practice than the 4+/75% cut-off, as it shows higher sensitivity with retained satisfactory specificity.

PRAME is a useful marker for the differential diagnosis of melanocytic tumours and histological mimics.

AIMS: Although the morphological assessment of melanoma is generally straightforward, diagnosis can be especially difficult when the significant morphological and immunohistochemical results overlap with those of benign and malignant melanocytic tumours and histological mimics. This study assessed the potential diagnostic utility of measuring PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemically in naevi, melanomas and clear cell sarcomas (CCSs) in Chinese patients. METHODS: We examined the immunohistochemical expression of PRAME in 317 melanocytic naevi, 178 primary melanomas, 72 metastatic melanomas and 19 CCSs and compared the sensitivity and specificity of PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the differential diagnosis of melanocytic tumours and histological mimics. RESULTS: Of the 317 melanocytic naevi, 98.1%were completely negative for PRAME; six cases showed focal PRAME immunoreactivity in a minor population of lesional melanocytes. Diffuse nuclear immunoreactivity for PRAME was found in 89.9% of primary melanomas and 93.1% of metastatic melanomas. Regarding melanoma subtypes, PRAME was expressed in 100% of superficial spreading melanomas, 100% of melanomas arise in congenital naevus, 91.4% of nodular melanomas, 87.8% of acral lentigo melanomas, 80.0% of lentigo malignant melanomas, 60.0% of Spitz melanomas, 96.2% of mucosal melanomas and 80.0% of uveal melanomas. None of the two desmoplastic melanomas expressed PRAME. Of the 19 CCS cases, 89.5% were negative for PRAME and 10.5% showed focal weak PRAME immunoreactivity in a minor population of tumour cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that PRAME may be a useful marker to support a suspected diagnosis of melanoma. In addition, lack of PRAME expression is a valuable hint to CCS in a suspected case, and then molecular confirmation of the presence of EWSR1 rearrangement is necessary.

Intrinsic disorder in PRAME and its role in uveal melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: The PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) protein has been shown to be an independent biomarker for increased risk of metastasis in Class 1 uveal melanomas (UM). Intrinsically disordered proteins and regions of proteins (IDPs/IDPRs) are proteins that do not have a well-defined three-dimensional structure and have been linked to neoplastic development. Our study aimed to evaluate the presence of intrinsic disorder in PRAME and the role these structureless regions have in PRAME( +) Class 1 UM. METHODS: A bioinformatics study to characterize PRAME's propensity for the intrinsic disorder. We first used the AlphaFold tool to qualitatively assess the protein structure of PRAME. Then we used the Compositional Profiler and a set of per-residue intrinsic disorder predictors to quantify the intrinsic disorder. The Database of Disordered Protein Prediction (D2P2) platform, IUPred, FuzDrop, fIDPnn, AUCpred, SPOT-Disorder2, and metapredict V2 allowed us to evaluate the potential functional disorder of PRAME. Additionally, we used the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes (STRING) to analyze PRAME's potential interactions with other proteins. RESULTS: Our structural analysis showed that PRAME contains intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDPRs), which are structureless and flexible. We found that PRAME is significantly enriched with serine (p-value < 0.05), a disorder-promoting amino acid. PRAME was found to have an average disorder score of 16.49% (i.e., moderately disordered) across six per-residue intrinsic disorder predictors. Our IUPred analysis revealed the presence of disorder-to-order transition (DOT) regions in PRAME near the C-terminus of the protein (residues 475-509). The D2P2 platform predicted a region from approximately 140 and 175 to be highly concentrated with post-translational modifications (PTMs). FuzDrop predicted the PTM hot spot of PRAME to be a droplet-promoting region and an aggregation hotspot. Finally, our analysis using the STRING tool revealed that PRAME has significantly more interactions with other proteins than expected for randomly selected proteins of the same size, with the ability to interact with 84 different partners (STRING analysis result: p-value < 1.0 × 10-16; model confidence: 0.400). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that PRAME has IDPRs that are possibly linked to its functionality in the context of Class 1 UM. The regions of functionality (i.e., DOT regions, PTM sites, droplet-promoting regions, and aggregation hotspots) are localized to regions of high levels of disorder. PRAME has a complex protein-protein interaction (PPI) network that may be secondary to the structureless features of the polypeptide. Our findings contribute to our understanding of UM and suggest that IDPRs and DOT regions in PRAME may be targeted in developing new therapies for this aggressive cancer. Video Abstract.

RNA analysis of tape strips to rule out melanoma in lesions clinically assessed as cutaneous malignant melanoma: A diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) from nevi can be clinically challenging. Suspicious lesions are therefore excised, resulting in many benign lesions being removed surgically to find 1 CMM. It has been proposed to use tape strip derived ribonucleic acid (RNA) to distinguish CMM from nevi. OBJECTIVE: To develop this technique further and validate if RNA profiles can rule out CMM in clinically suspicious lesions with 100% sensitivity. METHODS: Before surgical excision, 200 lesions clinically assessed as CMM were tape stripped. Expression levels of 11 genes on the tapes were investigated by RNA measurement and used in a rule-out test. RESULTS: Histopathology showed that 73 CMMs and 127 non-CMMs were included. Our test correctly identified all CMMs (100% sensitivity) based on the expression levels of 2 oncogenes, PRAME and KIT, relative to a housekeeping gene. Patient age and sample storage time were also significant. Simultaneously, our test correctly excluded CMM in 32% of non-CMM lesions (32% specificity). LIMITATIONS: Our sample contained a very high proportion of CMMs, perhaps due to inclusion during COVID-19 shutdown. Validation in a separate trial must be performed. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the technique can reduce removal of benign lesions by one-third without overlooking any CMMs.

Quantitative expression evaluation of PRAME gene in osteosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, our group observed that 68% of the osteosarcoma (OS) samples presented PRAME (Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma) gene expression. In this work, we propose to investigate quantitatively gene expression of PRAME in distinct patients groups. METHODS AND RESULTS: 61 osteosarcoma samples, from 3 distinct patients groups were selected for this study: (1) Patients younger than 10 years old at diagnosis, (2) Patients that had poor evolution of disease and (3) Patients that were in remission of disease and had treatment with no intercurrences) PRAME gene expression levels were obtained using quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction method (qRT-PCR). Clinical parameters were collected from patient's medical charts. Results demonstrated an increase in PRAME gene expression in all samples, with high variation in expression levels, when considering all samples and when analyzed in each group. In addition, no statistical difference was found when considering clinical data collected or patients groups. CONCLUSION: PRAME gene expression quantitative investigation did not bring any complementary information beyond of what had already been observed in other qualitative investigations published by our group, there is no relation between PRAME gene expression levels and disease evolution. However, the findings in this work contribute for validation PRAME gene expression as a good biomarker to OS, which, in the future, may allow identification circulating tumor cell or molecules to contribute with early diagnostic of metastasis, a genuine problem in OS that determinate flattening in survival curves.

PRAME immunohistochemistry is useful in differentiating oral melanomas from nevi and melanotic macules.

BACKGROUND: Oral melanocytic neoplasms pose a diagnostic challenge to pathologists owing to their rarity relative to those in the skin. The utility of PRAME in distinguishing nevi from melanomas has been established in the skin, but limited information exists regarding its usefulness in the oral cavity. METHODS: Thirty-five previously diagnosed pigmented oral lesions were retrospectively evaluated with PRAME. The lesions consisted of 16 oral nevi, 10 melanomas, and 10 melanotic macules. RESULTS: Strong and diffuse nuclear PRAME staining was observed in all but one of the oral melanomas, which showed no staining. No nuclear PRAME staining was observed in any of the oral nevi or melanotic macules. CONCLUSIONS: PRAME is a useful tool in the evaluation of oral melanocytic neoplasms. Our data indicate that PRAME is a highly specific but incompletely sensitive marker of oral melanoma. Larger studies could further illuminate the diagnostic value of PRAME in oral lesions.

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

BACKGROUND: Spitzoid 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. METHODS: Fluorescence 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. RESULTS: A 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). CONCLUSIONS: p16/BRAF V600E IHC predicts FISH results. "Low-risk" lesions (p16+ /BRAF V600E- ) uncommonly have meaningful FISH abnormalities (11%). PRAME may have limited utility in this setting.

PRAME-negativity in sclerosing nevi with pseudomelanomatous features supports classification as an indolent lesion.

BACKGROUND: Some dysplastic nevi, termed sclerosing nevi with pseudomelanomatous features, may have florid fibroplasia associated with features that cause melanoma to be a prominent consideration in the differential diagnosis. PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been shown to be a useful marker in the distinction of melanoma and nevus. PRAME expression in such sclerosing nevi with pseudomelanomatous features has not been evaluated to our knowledge. METHODS: Thirty-two sclerosing nevi with pseudomelanomatous features were stained with PRAME IHC, with positive labeling defined as staining of >75% of the cytomorphologically atypical lesional cells. RESULTS: All 32 cases had variable cytologic atypia, bridging of elongated rete, fibroplasia, and a vertically oriented trizonal appearance. Some cases (23/32) had centrally located flattening of the rete ridge pattern bilaterally flanked by fibroplasia associated with elongated rete. PRAME labeling was negative (<1% labeling) in 28/32 cases. Four cases, also interpreted as having negative labeling with PRAME, showed only weak nuclear positivity of <50% of the melanocytes within the pseudomelanomatous foci. p16 staining was positive in 28/28 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Rare sclerosing nevi with pseudomelanomatous features (4/32; ~13%) had weak PRAME labeling of 25%-50% of atypical foci. Twenty-eight of 32 lesions had virtually no labeling with PRAME. PRAME results support classifying sclerosing nevi with pseudomelanomatous features as indolent lesions.

PRAME expression in cutaneous melanoma does not correlate with disease-specific survival.

BACKGROUND: Immunohistochemistry-based protein biomarkers can provide useful prognostic information in cutaneous melanoma. The independent prognostic value of Ki-67 has been studied with variable results. PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemistry is a useful new ancillary tool for distinguishing cutaneous nevi from melanoma; however, its prognostic value has not been well studied. We evaluated PRAME as a prognostic marker in cutaneous melanoma, compared to Ki-67. METHODS: We analyzed the immunohistochemical expression of PRAME and Ki-67 in 165 melanocytic lesions, including 92 primary melanomas, 19 metastatic melanomas, and 54 melanocytic nevi using tissue microarrays. PRAME immunostaining was scored based on the percentage of positive nuclei: 0 <1%, 1+ 1%-25%, 2+ 26%-50%, 3+ 51%-75%, and 4+ >75%. The percentage of Ki-67-positive tumor nuclei was used to calculate the proliferation index. RESULTS: PRAME and Ki-67 both showed significantly increased expression in melanomas compared to nevi (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in PRAME expression in primary versus metastatic melanomas. By contrast, the Ki-67 proliferation index was higher in metastatic melanoma than in primary melanoma (p = 0.013). Increased Ki-67 index correlated with ulceration (p < 0.001), increased Breslow depth (p = 0.001), and higher mitotic rate (p < 0.0001), whereas increased PRAME expression correlated with higher mitotic rate (p = 0.047) and Ki-67 index (p = 0.007). Increased Ki-67 index correlated with worse disease-specific survival in patients with primary melanoma (p < 0.001), but PRAME expression did not show prognostic significance in disease-specific survival (p = 0.63). In a multivariable analysis of patients with primary melanoma, tumor Breslow depth, ulceration, mitotic rate, and Ki-67 index were each independent predictors of disease-specific survival (p = 0.006, 0.02, 0.001, and 0.04, respectively); however, PRAME expression was not predictive of disease-specific survival (p = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Ki-67 is an independent prognostic marker; although increased PRAME expression correlates with the Ki-67 proliferation index and mitotic rate, PRAME is not an independent prognostic marker for cutaneous melanoma. PRAME and Ki-67 are useful ancillary tools for distinguishing benign from malignant melanocytic lesions.

Potential diagnostic utility of PRAME and p16 immunohistochemistry in melanocytic nevi and malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) is a tumor-associated antigen that has been studied in various cutaneous melanocytic lesions. p16, on the other hand, has been proposed to aid in distinguishing between benign and malignant melanocytic neoplasms. Studies on the diagnostic utility of PRAME and p16 in combination in differentiating nevi from melanoma are limited. We aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of PRAME and p16 in melanocytic tumors and their role in distinguishing between malignant melanomas and melanocytic nevi. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort analysis over a 4-year period (2017-2020). We used the pathological database of malignant melanomas (77 cases) and melanocytic nevi (51 cases) specimens from patients who underwent shave/punch biopsies or surgical excisions and evaluated immunohistochemical staining percentage positivity and intensity for PRAME and p16. RESULTS: Most malignant melanomas showed positive/diffuse PRAME expression (89.6%); on the other hand, 96.1% of nevi did not express PRAME diffusely. p16 was expressed consistently in nevi (98.0%). However, p16 expression in malignant melanoma was infrequent in our study. PRAME had a sensitivity and specificity of 89.6% and 96.1%, respectively, for melanomas versus nevi; on the other hand, p16 had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.0% and 28.6%, respectively, for nevi versus melanoma. Also, a PRAME+/p16- melanocytic lesion is unlikely to be a nevus where most nevi were PRAME-/p16+. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we confirm the potential utility of PRAME and p16 for distinguishing melanocytic nevi from malignant melanomas.

FLI-1/Melan-A dual stain is an alternative to PRAME in differentiating metastatic melanoma from nodal nevus: A monocentric retrospective study.

Melanocytic nevi existing in lymph nodes create a diagnostic challenge by mimicking metastases. PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemical (IHC) stain can differentiate one from another. FLI-1 IHC expression has been shown in malignant melanoma with variable sensitivity while melanocytic nevi were reported to be negative. We hypothesized that FLI-1/Melan-A dual IHC staining may be used in the distinction of metastatic melanoma from nodal nevi and can be an alternative and/or complementary to PRAME. In this study, we examined 13 lymph nodes with metastatic melanoma and 13 lymph nodes with benign deposits. We stained all of the lymph nodes with FLI-1, FLI-1/Melan-A dual, and PRAME IHC stains. In addition, we stained paired skin samples of the metastatic lymph nodes with FLI-1 and PRAME. In primary cutaneous melanomas, 11 of 13 were positive for FLI-1 and PRAME expression (85%). Malignant cells in 12 and 13 lymph nodes showed positive expression of PRAME and FLI-1, respectively. Only one case with a nevic cell deposit was weakly positive for FLI-1 and the remaining benign cases were negative for both FLI-1 and PRAME. Our results show that FLI-1/Melan-A dual stain is as sensitive and specific as PRAME in distinguishing lymph nodes with metastatic melanoma from nodal nevi. Further studies with larger case numbers are needed to support our significant results.

PRAME immunohistochemistry can distinguish melanocytic pseudonests of lichenoid reactions from melanoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing melanocytic pseudonests encountered in lichenoid dermatoses or lichenoid keratoses from melanoma in situ (MIS) with brisk lichenoid inflammation can prove challenging. METHODS: We designed a case-control study to evaluate the accuracy metrics of PRAME immunohistochemistry to distinguish melanocytic pseudonests in lichenoid dermatoses or keratoses from inflamed MIS. Immunostaining for PRAME was performed on paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed diagnostic tissue using a rabbit monoclonal antibody to PRAME (Abcam), with a 1:3200 dilution on a Leica Bond detection system. RESULTS: Our search identified 21 cases of melanocytic pseudonests (n = 21, 46%) encountered in lichenoid dermatoses and 24 cases of inflamed MIS (n = 24, 53%). Each method of evaluating PRAME immunohistochemistry (PRAME+ clusters, PRAME % of melanocytes by four categories and PRAME+ melanocyte counts per linear mm of epidermal basal layer) showed statistically significant differences between the MIS and the pseudonest cohorts (respectively, p < 0.001; p < 0.001; and p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics analysis for PRAME+ melanocyte counts per linear mm of epidermal basal layer revealed an area under the curve of 0.9 ± 0.05 (95% confidence interval 0.9-1.0). When determining an optimal cut-off point for the best Youden index [sensitivity (%) + specificity (%) - 100], the cut-off of 1.0 PRAME+ melanocytes per linear mm showed a sensitivity of 79.2% and specificity of 85.7% (Youden index 0.65) to distinguish MIS from pseudonests. CONCLUSION: PRAME immunohistochemistry may constitute an additional tool for this challenging differential diagnosis.

Performance of PRAME immunohistochemistry compared with that of c-Kit, c-Myc, or cyclin D1 for the diagnosis of acral melanocytic tumors.

The diagnostic role of preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemistry has not been thoroughly evaluated for acral melanocytic tumors. The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of this modality for the diagnosis of acral melanocytic tumors compared with other potential markers. Melanocytic tumors were classified as either acral nevi, challenging melanocytic tumors (superficial atypical melanocytic proliferation of uncertain significance (SAMPUS)-favor benign (SAMPUS-FB), SAMPUS-favor malignant (SAMPUS-FM)) or acral melanomas. A total of 106 acral melanocytic tumors including acral nevi (n = 32), SAMPUS-FB (n = 17), SAMPUS-FM (n = 20), and acral melanomas (n = 37) were included. Diagnostic power, assessed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for distinguishing acral melanomas and acral nevi, was highest for PRAME (AUC = 0.997), followed by c-Myc (AUC = 0.755), cyclin D1 (AUC = 0.652), and c-Kit (AUC = 0.573). At a PRAME expression level ≥30% as a positive test for acral melanoma, the sensitivity and specificity of this marker for discriminating acral melanoma from acral nevus were 100% and 96.9%, respectively. PRAME immunohistochemistry also discriminated SAMPUS-FM from SAMPUS-FB with a sensitivity and specificity of 90.0% and 76.5%, respectively. In conclusion, PRAME immunohistochemistry can be used effectively to distinguish between various spectra of acral melanocytic neoplasms.

Dermoscopic features associated with 3-GEP PLA: LINC00518, PRAME, and TERT expression in suspicious pigmented lesions.

Utilization of dermoscopy and novel molecular triage technologies augments visual triage of pigmented skin lesions, promoting early detection of melanoma. One emerging in vivo genomic test, 3-GEP pigmented lesion assay (3-GEP PLA) aids in pigmented lesion triage by noninvasively detecting the presence of three genes associated with melanoma: LINC00518, PRAME, and TERT. The purpose of our retrospective case-control study was to identify dermoscopic features uniquely associated with the presence of LINC00518, PRAME, or TERT in the stratum corneum as determined by 3-GEP PLA testing. Images of suspicious pigmented lesions that had undergone 3-GEP PLA testing and received a definitive positive or negative result (n = 393) were evaluated for the presence of specific clinical and dermoscopic features associated with melanoma. We found that asymmetry of color was a significant predictor for PRAME expression (Odds Ratio (OR) 5.5, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.6-34.5, p = 0.004), blue color and negative pigment network were significant predictors for LINC00518 expression (adjusted OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-5.5, p = 0.014 and adjusted OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.6-16.9, p = 0.010, respectively), and atypical polymorphous vessels present in a pigmented skin lesion were a significant predictor for TERT promoter mutations (OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.3-23.4, p = 0.022). The results presented suggest a hierarchy in the significance of these dermoscopic features and may help guide evaluation and management of pigmented skin lesions.