BRAF mutation testing for patients diagnosed with stage III or stage IV melanoma: practical guidance for the Australian setting.

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAFV600 mutation testing does not need to be requested by the treating clinician). When performed in centres with appropriate expertise and experience, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (VE1) can be a highly sensitive and specific means of detecting BRAFV600E mutations, and may be used as a rapid and relatively inexpensive initial screening test. However, VE1 immunostaining can be technically challenging and difficult to interpret, particularly in heavily pigmented tumours; melanomas with weak, moderate or focal BRAFV600E immunostaining should be regarded as equivocal. It must also be remembered that other activating BRAFV600 mutations (including BRAFV600K), which account for ∼10-20% of BRAFV600 mutations, are not detected with currently available IHC antibodies. For these reasons, if available and practicable, we recommend that DNA-based BRAF mutation testing always be performed, regardless of whether IHC-based testing is also conducted. Advice about tissue/specimen selection for BRAF mutation testing of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma is also offered in this article; and potential pitfalls when interpreting BRAF mutation tests are highlighted.

Exploring the feasibility and utility of exome-scale tumour sequencing in a clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: Technology has progressed from single gene panel to large-scale genomic sequencing. This is raising expectations from clinicians and patients alike. The utility and performance of this technology in a clinical setting needs to be evaluated. AIM: This pilot study investigated the feasibility of using exome-scale sequencing (ESS) to identify molecular drivers within cancers in real-time for Precision Oncology in the clinic. METHODS: Between March 2014 and March 2015, the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance explored the feasibility and utility of ESS in a pilot study. DNA extracted from the tumour specimens underwent both ESS and targeted 'hotspot' sequencing (TS). Blood was taken for germline analysis. A multi-disciplinary molecular tumour board determined the clinical relevance of identified mutations; in particular, whether they were 'actionable' and/or 'druggable'. RESULTS: Of 23 patients screened, 15 (65%) met the tissue requirements for genomic analysis. TS and ESS were successful in all cases. ESS identified pathogenic somatic variants in 73% (11/15 cases) versus 53% (8/15 cases) using TS. Clinically focused ESS identified 63 variants, consisting of 30 somatic variants (including all 13 identified by TS) and 33 germline variants. Overall, there were 48 unique variants. ESS had a clinical impact in 53% (8/15 cases); 47% (7/15 cases) were referred to the familial cancer clinic, and 'druggable' targets were identified in 53% (8/15 cases). CONCLUSION: ESS of tumour DNA impacted clinical decision-making in 53%, with 20% more pathogenic variants identified through ESS than TS. The identification of germline variants in 47% was an unexpected finding.