Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The relationships between so-called spitzoid tumours have proven difficult to understand.

OBJECTIVES:

To address three questions: does spitzoid tumour morphological similarity reflect molecular similarity? Does Spitz naevus progress into spitzoid melanoma? Are ambiguous spitzoid tumours genuine entities?

METHODS:

BRAF, NRAS and HRAS mutations were analysed using single-strand conformational polymorphism analysis and sequencing.

RESULTS:

Both Spitz naevi and spitzoid melanoma had a lower combined BRAF and NRAS mutation frequency compared with common acquired naevi (P = 0.0001) and common forms of melanoma (P = 0.0072), respectively. To look for evidence of progression from Spitz naevi to spitzoid melanoma, HRAS was analysed in 21 spitzoid melanomas, with no mutations identified. The binomial probability of this was 0.03 based on an assumption of a 15% mutation frequency in Spitz naevi with unbiased progression. Under these assumptions, HRAS mutations must be rare/absent in spitzoid melanoma. Thus, Spitz naevi seem unlikely to progress into spitzoid melanoma, implying that ambiguous spitzoid tumours cannot be intermediate degrees of progression. In addition, the data suggest that HRAS mutation is a potential marker of benign behaviour, in support of which none of three HRAS mutant spitzoid cases metastasized.

CONCLUSIONS:

First, the morphological similarity of spitzoid tumours reflects an underlying molecular similarity, namely a relative lack of dependence on BRAF/NRAS mutations. Second, Spitz naevi do not appear to progress into spitzoid melanoma, and consequently ambiguous spitzoid tumours are likely to be unclassifiable Spitz naevi or spitzoid melanoma rather than genuine entities. Third, HRAS mutation may be a marker of Spitz naevus, raising the possibility that other molecular markers for discriminating Spitz naevi from spitzoid melanoma can be discovered.