"Paradoxical" p16 overexpression in cutaneous melanoma: Molecular and immunohistochemical analysis of a rare phenomenon with a focus on cell cycle regulatory molecules.

BACKGROUND: One of the most relevant genetic alterations in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the biallelic inactivation/loss-of-heterozygosis (LOH) of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2 A (CDKN2A), which results in the immunohistochemical loss of p16 frequently found in CM. However, we recently described a rare case of dermal/deep-seated melanoma arising in giant congenital nevus (DDM-GCN) with p16 overexpression combined with p53 loss and tumor protein 53 (TP53) mutation. Herein, we reported a case series of CM with p16 overexpression and analyzed their clinicopathologic features, immunohistochemical expression of the cell cycle regulatory molecules (CCRM: p53, p21, Cyclin D1, Rb), and mutational landscape. METHODS: We retrospectively tested for p16 all cases of CM diagnosed at our institution between January 1st 2019-April 1st 2022. In CM with p16 overexpression, we reported clinicopathologic features, immunohistochemical results for melanocytic markers and CCRM, and mutational landscape investigated with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel. In cases with zonal p16 overexpression, the immunohistochemical assessment for melanocytic markers and CCRM, as well as the NGS analysis have been performed in both components {with and without p16 overexpression [p16(+)c and p16(-)]}. RESULTS: Overexpression of p16 was found in 10/2879 (0.35%) CM [5/10 (50%) diffuse and 5/10 (50%) zonal]. We combined the immunohistochemical results for CCRM and molecular data to classify the cases as follows: a) Group 1 with altered expression of at least one CCRM but no TP53 mutations [3/10 (30%), all with Rb altered/lost]; b) Group 2 with altered expression of at least one CCRM and TP53 mutations [4/10 (40%), all with p53 altered]; c) Group 3 with normal expression of CCRM and no TP53 mutations [3/10 (30%), all with mutations in MAPK pathway genes (NRAS and BRAF)]. In CM with zonal p16 overexpression, the histologic appearance of p16(+)c was heterogeneous, whereas combining CCRM profiles and molecular data the cases could be categorized as follows: a) cases with the same CCRM and molecular profiles in both p16(+)c and p16(-)c; b) cases with p16(+)c showing additional genetic mutations and/or modifications of CCRM expression. CONCLUSIONS: p16 overexpression is a rare event, occurring in advanced-stage, clinically- and histologically-heterogeneous CM. These lesions may be classified into three different groups based on CCRM expression and mutational profiles (including TP53 mutation). The analysis of CM with zonal p16 overexpression suggests that, at least in a subset of cases, this phenomenon could represent a sign of "molecular progression" due to the acquisition of additional genetic mutations and/or modifications of the CCRM profile.

TAMs PD-L1(+) in the reprogramming of germ cell tumors of the testis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, several studies focused on the process of reprogramming of seminoma (S) cells, which regulates the transition from pure S (P-S) to S component (S-C) of mixed germ cell tumors of the testis (GCTT) and finally to embryonal carcinoma (EC) and other nonseminomatous GCTT (NS-GCTT). The accepted pathogenetic model is driven and regulated by cells (macrophages, B- and T-lymphocytes) and molecules of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Herein, we tested a series of GCTT with double staining (DS) for CD68-PD-L1 to evaluate tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) expressing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) [TAMs PD-L1(+)] and clarify if these cells may be involved in establishing the fate of GCTT. METHODS: We collected 45 GCTT (comprising a total of 62 different components of GCTT). TAMs PD-L1(+) were evaluated with three different scoring systems [TAMs PD-L1(+)/mm2, TAMs PD-L1(+)/mm2H-score, TAMs PD-L1(+) %], and compared using pertinent statistic tests (Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test). RESULTS: We found that TAMs PD-L1(+) values were higher in S rather than EC (p = 0.001, p = 0.015, p = 0.022) and NS-GCTT (p < 0.001). P-S showed statistically significant differences in TAMs PD-L1(+) values compared to S-C (p < 0.001, p = 0.006, p = 0.015), but there were no differences between S-C and EC (p = 0.107, p = 0.408, p = 0.800). Finally, we found statistically significant differences also in TAMs PD-L1(+) values between EC and other NS-GCTT (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TAMs PD-L1(+) levels gradually decrease during the reprogramming of S cells {P-S [(high values of TAMs PD-L1(+)] → S-C and EC [(intermediate values of TAMs PD-L1(+)] → other NS-GCTT [(low values of TAMs PD-L1(+)], supporting a complex pathogenetic model where the interactions between tumor cells and TME components [and specifically TAMs PD-L1(+)] play a key role in determining the fate of GCTT.