TERT Promoter Mutations are Associated with Visceral Spreading in Melanoma of the Trunk.

Survival predictions are currently determined on the basis of NRAS/BRAF mutations, even though TERT promoter mutations have been recently associated with a poor prognosis in stage I-II melanomas. Usually, it is not recommended to perform a mutational test on primary melanoma, as the results do not always reflect the mutational status of metastases. In particular, trunk melanomas have been reported to have an unfavourable prognosis. A series of 105 advanced melanoma patients were analysed by TERT promoter Sanger sequencing. Univariate/multivariate binary logistic regression models were performed using progression to a visceral site as the dependent variable and patient/tumour characteristics as covariates. Performance of the model was assessed in an external independent primary melanoma patients' dataset. Male gender (odds ratio (OR), 344; 95% CI, 1.12⁻10.6; p = 0.031), AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) classification (OR, 022; 95% CI, 0.07⁻0.67; p = 0.008), SLNB (Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy) status (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.06⁻8.78; p = 0.039) and TERT-mutated trunk lesions (OR, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.35⁻10.6; p = 0.011) were significantly associated with the risk of developing a visceral spreading as first site of progression using multivariate logistic regression analysis. These results were confirmed in the external validation control group. Therefore, in trunk primary melanomas, due to their high risk of progression to visceral sites, we encourage somatic TERT mutation analysis at diagnosis to identify those patients who would potentially benefit from a more intensive follow-up protocol and a prompt initiation of therapy.

Awareness of mutational artefacts in suboptimal DNA samples: possible risk for therapeutic choices.

BACKGROUND: Technical biases due to PCR artefacts could represent an insidious obstacle for mutational analysis and precision medicine. METHODS: The authors report a retrospective analysis by fast COLD-PCR and sequencing of 31 suboptimal tumor DNA samples obtained from FFPE tissues and liquid biopsies. RESULTS: In FFPE tumor tissues and plasma liquid biopsies of patients with lung and colorectal adenocarcinoma, we observed a significant rate of artefactual KRAS mutations, unveiled by repeated analysis following UDG pretreatment as well as by simple repetition without UDG pretreatment step, thus suggesting a DNA damage different from cytosine deamination. UDG pretreatment was not only unnecessary to contrast artefacts occurrence, but also hampered the efficiency of mutational screening, reducing the analytical sensitivity. Taken individually or considered together, the reduced DNA input per reaction and UDG pretreatment limited the detection of 'real' mutated alleles, decreasing PCR sensitivity enough to hamper distinction between artefactual and true subclonal mutations of KRAS. CONCLUSIONS: Careful validation of analytical sensitivities should always be carried out through standard controls, and strategies other than UDG pretreatment need to be identified to avoid both amplification of artefactual mutations and failure to identify real subclonal mutations.

Extreme assay sensitivity in molecular diagnostics further unveils intratumour heterogeneity in metastatic colorectal cancer as well as artifactual low-frequency mutations in the KRAS gene.

BACKGROUND: Gene mutations in the RAS family rule out metastatic colorectal carcinomas (mCRCs) from anti-EGFR therapies. METHODS: We report a retrospective analysis by Sequenom Massarray and fast COLD-PCR followed by Sanger sequencing on 240 mCRCs. RESULTS: By Sequenom, KRAS and NRAS exons 2-3-4 were mutated in 52.9% (127/240) of tumours, while BRAF codon 600 mutations reached 5% (12/240). Fast COLD-PCR found extra mutations at KRAS exon 2 in 15/166 (9%) of samples, previously diagnosed by Sequenom as wild-type or mutated at RAS (exons 3-4) or BRAF genes. After UDG digestion results were reproduced in 2/12 analysable subclonally mutated samples leading to a frequency of true subclonal KRAS mutations of 1.2% (2.1% of the previous Sequenom wild-type subgroup). In 10 out of 12 samples, the subclonal KRAS mutations disappeared (9 out of 12) or turned to a different sequence variant (1 out of 12). CONCLUSIONS: mCRC can harbour coexisting multiple gene mutations. High sensitivity assays allow the detection of a small subset of patients harbouring true subclonal KRAS mutations. However, DNA changes with mutant allele frequencies <3% detected in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples may be artifactual in a non-negligible fraction of cases. UDG pre-treatment of DNA is mandatory to identify true DNA changes in archival samples and avoid misinterpretation due to artifacts.