GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma: a subtype distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma.
DNA Mutational Analysis
GTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits
/ genetics
GTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gq-G11
/ genetics
Humans
Melanoma
/ genetics
Mutation
/ genetics
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Skin Neoplasms
/ genetics
Tumor Suppressor Proteins
Ubiquitin Thiolesterase
Uveal Neoplasms
/ genetics
Journal
The British journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1365-2133
Titre abrégé: Br J Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0004041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
accepted:
11
02
2020
pubmed:
18
2
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
18
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma represent a poorly characterized rare subgroup of melanoma with a gene mutation profile similar to uveal melanoma. To characterize these tumours in terms of clinical behaviour and genetic characteristics. Patients with nonuveal GNAQ/11 mutated melanoma were identified from the prospective multicentre tumour tissue registry ADOREG, Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM) and additional cooperating skin cancer centres. Extensive data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively. Targeted sequencing was used to determine tumour mutational burden. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed for programmed death-ligand 1 and BRCA1-associated protein (BAP)1. Existing whole-exome cutaneous and uveal melanoma data were analysed for mutation type and burden. We identified 18 patients with metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanoma. Tumours had a lower tumour mutational burden and fewer ultraviolet signature mutations than cutaneous melanomas. In addition to GNAQ and GNA11 mutations (nine each), six splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), three eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A X-linked (EIF1AX) and four BAP1 mutations were detected. In contrast to uveal melanoma, GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas frequently metastasized lymphatically and concurrent EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations showed no apparent association with patient prognosis. Objective response to immunotherapy was poor with only one partial response observed in 10 treated patients (10%). Our findings suggest that GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is both clinically and genetically distinct from cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As they respond poorly to available treatment regimens, novel effective therapeutic approaches for affected patients are urgently needed. What is already known about this topic? The rare occurrence of GNAQ/11 mutations in nonuveal melanoma has been documented. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas also harbour genetic alterations in EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 that are of prognostic relevance in uveal melanoma. What does this study add? GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas show metastatic spread reminiscent of cutaneous melanoma, but not uveal melanoma. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas have a low tumour mutational burden that is higher than uveal melanoma, but lower than cutaneous melanoma. What is the translational message? Primary GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is clinically and genetically distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas respond poorly to available systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, novel therapeutic approaches for these tumours are urgently needed. Linked Comment: Rafei-Shamsabadi. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:806-807.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma represent a poorly characterized rare subgroup of melanoma with a gene mutation profile similar to uveal melanoma.
OBJECTIVES
To characterize these tumours in terms of clinical behaviour and genetic characteristics.
METHODS
Patients with nonuveal GNAQ/11 mutated melanoma were identified from the prospective multicentre tumour tissue registry ADOREG, Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM) and additional cooperating skin cancer centres. Extensive data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively. Targeted sequencing was used to determine tumour mutational burden. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed for programmed death-ligand 1 and BRCA1-associated protein (BAP)1. Existing whole-exome cutaneous and uveal melanoma data were analysed for mutation type and burden.
RESULTS
We identified 18 patients with metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanoma. Tumours had a lower tumour mutational burden and fewer ultraviolet signature mutations than cutaneous melanomas. In addition to GNAQ and GNA11 mutations (nine each), six splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), three eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A X-linked (EIF1AX) and four BAP1 mutations were detected. In contrast to uveal melanoma, GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas frequently metastasized lymphatically and concurrent EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations showed no apparent association with patient prognosis. Objective response to immunotherapy was poor with only one partial response observed in 10 treated patients (10%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is both clinically and genetically distinct from cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As they respond poorly to available treatment regimens, novel effective therapeutic approaches for affected patients are urgently needed. What is already known about this topic? The rare occurrence of GNAQ/11 mutations in nonuveal melanoma has been documented. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas also harbour genetic alterations in EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 that are of prognostic relevance in uveal melanoma. What does this study add? GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas show metastatic spread reminiscent of cutaneous melanoma, but not uveal melanoma. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas have a low tumour mutational burden that is higher than uveal melanoma, but lower than cutaneous melanoma. What is the translational message? Primary GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is clinically and genetically distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas respond poorly to available systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, novel therapeutic approaches for these tumours are urgently needed. Linked Comment: Rafei-Shamsabadi. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:806-807.
Substances chimiques
BAP1 protein, human
0
GNA11 protein, human
0
GNAQ protein, human
0
GTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits
0
Tumor Suppressor Proteins
0
Ubiquitin Thiolesterase
EC 3.4.19.12
GTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gq-G11
EC 3.6.5.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
928-939Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : SCHA 422/17-1
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : HO 6389/2-1 (KFO 337)
Organisme : Bristol-Myers Squibb
ID : CA209-578
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.
Références
Bastian BC. The molecular pathology of melanoma: an integrated taxonomy of melanocytic neoplasia. Annu Rev Pathol 2014; 9:239-71.
Curtin JA, Fridlyand J, Kageshita T et al. Distinct sets of genetic alterations in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2135-47.
Lee JH, Choi JW, Kim YS. Frequencies of BRAF and NRAS mutations are different in histological types and sites of origin of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol 2011; 164:776-84.
Schadendorf D, van Akkooi ACJ, Berking C et al. Melanoma. Lancet 2018; 392:971-84.
Daniels AB, Lee JE, MacConaill LE et al. High throughput mass spectrometry-based mutation profiling of primary uveal melanoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53:6991-6.
Van Raamsdonk CD, Griewank KG, Crosby MB et al. Mutations in GNA11 in uveal melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2191-9.
Ambrosini G, Pratilas CA, Qin LX et al. Identification of unique MEK-dependent genes in GNAQ mutant uveal melanoma involved in cell growth, tumor cell invasion, and MEK resistance. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:3552-61.
Van Raamsdonk CD, Bezrookove V, Green G et al. Frequent somatic mutations of GNAQ in uveal melanoma and blue naevi. Nature 2009; 457:599-602.
Patel M, Smyth E, Chapman PB et al. Therapeutic implications of the emerging molecular biology of uveal melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17:2087-100.
Yang J, Manson DK, Marr BP et al. Treatment of uveal melanoma: where are we now? Ther Adv Med Oncol 2018; 10:1758834018757175.
Annala S, Feng X, Shridhar N et al. Direct targeting of Gαq and Gα11 oncoproteins in cancer cells. Sci Signal 2019; 12:eaau5948.
Algazi AP, Tsai KK, Shoushtari AN et al. Clinical outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma treated with PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies. Cancer 2016; 122:3344-53.
Zimmer L, Vaubel J, Mohr P et al. Phase II DeCOG-study of ipilimumab in pretreated and treatment-naive patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. PLOS ONE 2015; 10:e0118564.
Karydis I, Chan PY, Wheater M et al. Clinical activity and safety of pembrolizumab in ipilimumab pre-treated patients with uveal melanoma. Oncoimmunology 2016; 5:e1143997.
Piperno-Neumann S, Servois V, Mariani P. Activity of anti-PD1 drugs in uveal melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (Suppl.):9588.
Nathan P, Ascierto PA, Haanen J et al. Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with rare melanoma subtypes who progressed on or after ipilimumab treatment: a single-arm, open-label, phase II study (CheckMate 172). Eur J Cancer 2019; 119:168-78.
Kastelan S, Antunica AG, Oreskovic LB et al. Immunotherapy for uveal melanoma - current knowledge and perspectives. Curr Med Chem 2020; in press.
Lyu J, Wu Y, Li C et al. Mutation scanning of BRAF, NRAS, KIT, and GNAQ/GNA11 in oral mucosal melanoma: a study of 57 cases. J Oral Pathol Med 2016; 45:295-301.
Ozturk Sari S, Yilmaz I, Taskin OC et al. BRAF, NRAS, KIT, TERT, GNAQ/GNA11 mutation profile analysis of head and neck mucosal melanomas: a study of 42 cases. Pathology 2017; 49:55-61.
Sheng X, Kong Y, Li Y et al. GNAQ and GNA11 mutations occur in 9.5% of mucosal melanoma and are associated with poor prognosis. Eur J Cancer 2016; 65:156-63.
Griewank KG, Muller H, Jackett LA et al. SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations in blue nevus-like melanoma. Mod Pathol 2017; 30:928-39.
Harbour JW, Onken MD, Roberson ED et al. Frequent mutation of BAP1 in metastasizing uveal melanomas. Science 2010; 330:1410-13.
Harbour JW, Roberson ED, Anbunathan H et al. Recurrent mutations at codon 625 of the splicing factor SF3B1 in uveal melanoma. Nat Genet 2013; 45:133-5.
Martin M, Maßhöfer L, Temming P et al. Exome sequencing identifies recurrent somatic mutations in EIF1AX and SF3B1 in uveal melanoma with disomy 3. Nat Genet 2013; 45:933-6.
Johnson DB, Roszik J, Shoushtari AN et al. Comparative analysis of the GNAQ, GNA11, SF3B1, and EIF1AX driver mutations in melanoma and across the cancer spectrum. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 2016; 29:470-3.
Schaper-Gerhardt K, Okoye S, Herbst R et al. PD-L1 status does not predict the outcome of BRAF inhibitor therapy in metastatic melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2018; 88:67-76.
Griewank KG, Koelsche C, van de Nes JAP et al. Integrated genomic classification of melanocytic tumors of the central nervous system using mutation analysis, copy number alterations, and DNA methylation profiling. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24:4494-504.
Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Genomic classification of cutaneous melanoma. Cell 2015; 161:1681-96.
Robertson AG, Shih J, Yau C et al. Integrative analysis identifies four molecular and clinical subsets in uveal melanoma. Cancer Cell 2017; 32:204-20.e15.
van de Nes JA, Nelles J, Kreis S et al. Comparing the prognostic value of BAP1 mutation pattern, chromosome 3 status, and BAP1 immunohistochemistry in uveal melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40:796-805.
Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:122-33.
Costa S, Byrne M, Pissaloux D et al. Melanomas associated with blue nevi or mimicking cellular blue nevi: clinical, pathologic, and molecular study of 11 cases displaying a high frequency of GNA11 mutations, BAP1 expression loss, and a predilection for the scalp. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40:368-77.
Griewank KG, Müller H, Jackett LA et al. SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations in blue nevus-like melanoma. Mod Pathol 2017; 30:928-39.
Song Y, Karakousis GC. Melanoma of unknown primary. J Surg Oncol 2019; 119:232-41.
Moller I, Murali R, Muller H et al. Activating cysteinyl leukotriene receptor 2 (CYSLTR2) mutations in blue nevi. Mod Pathol 2016; 30:350-6.
Kujala E, Mäkitie T, Kivelä T. Very long-term prognosis of patients with malignant uveal melanoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44:4651-9.
Van Allen EM, Miao D, Schilling B et al. Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science 2015; 350:207-11.
Samstein RM, Lee CH, Shoushtari AN et al. Tumor mutational load predicts survival after immunotherapy across multiple cancer types. Nat Genet 2019; 51:202-6.
Long GV, Flaherty KT, Stroyakovskiy D et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. Ann Oncol 2017; 28:1631-9.
Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dreno B et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1248-60.
Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ et al. Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:1315-27.
Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:1535-46.
Robert C, Ribas A, Schachter J et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:1239-51.
Heppt MV, Heinzerling L, Kahler KC et al. Prognostic factors and outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma treated with programmed cell death-1 or combined PD-1/cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibition. Eur J Cancer 2017; 82:56-65.