Effects of BRAF V600E and NRAS mutational status on the progression‑free survival and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with melanoma
- Tatjana Zablocka
- Madara Kreismane
- Dace Pjanova
- Sergejs Isajevs
Affiliations: Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Latvia, LV‑1004 Riga, Latvia, Department of Cancer Research, Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Centre, LV‑1067 Riga, Latvia
- Published online on: November 24, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2022.13613
Copyright: © Zablocka
et al. This is an open access article distributed under the
terms of Creative
Commons Attribution License.
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
Hotspot mutations of the BRAF and NRAS genes are the most common genetic alterations in invasive cutaneous melanoma; however, the prognostic significance of BRAF and NRAS co‑mutations remains controversial. The present study aimed to determine the association between NRAS and BRAF mutation status and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with stage IA‑IIC melanoma. A total of 118 patients who underwent surgical treatment for stage IA‑IIC melanoma at the Riga East University Hospital between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. BRAF and NRAS mutation status was assessed by digital droplet PCR using the BRAFV600, NRAS Q61 and NRAS G12/G13 Screening Assays. The association between mutation status and clinicopathological features and progression‑free survival (PFS) was then analyzed. The BRAF V600 mutation was detected in 67 out of 118 patients (56.8%). The PFS did not differ between patients with BRAF wild‑type and BRAF‑mutant melanoma. NRAS mutations were detected in 35 out of 118 patients (29.6%). The NRAS mutational status was associated with Breslow thickness (P=0.035), tumor type (P=0.020; χ2=0.20), mitotic rate (P=0.025) and lymphovascular invasion (P=0.02; χ2=0.20). Patients with NRAS‑mutant melanoma had significantly worse PFS compared with NRAS wild‑type melanoma (HR=12.30; 95% CI=5.78‑26.21, P<0.0001). Furthermore, BRAF and NRAS co‑mutant melanoma was associated with a significantly worse PFS compared with BRAF‑mutant melanoma (HR=6.30; 95% CI=3.10‑12.70, P<0.0001). In conclusion, NRAS‑mutant and NRAS/BRAF co‑mutant stage IA‑IIC melanoma was associated with worse PFS compared with NRAS wild‑type and BRAF‑mutant melanoma. The assessment of NRAS mutation status in melanoma in routine clinical practice may be beneficial for the risk stratification of disease progression for primary non‑metastatic malignant melanoma.