Investigation of prognostic indicators for human uveal melanoma as biomarkers of canine uveal melanoma metastasis

2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (11) ◽  
pp. 584-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Malho ◽  
K. Dunn ◽  
D. Donaldson ◽  
R. R. Dubielzig ◽  
Z. Birand ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustav Stålhammar ◽  
Thonnie Rose O. See ◽  
Stephen Phillips ◽  
Stefan Seregard ◽  
Hans E. Grossniklaus

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
pp. 3244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatorelli ◽  
Puzzo ◽  
Bartoloni ◽  
Palmucci ◽  
Longo ◽  
...  

MacroH2A is a histone variant whose expression has been studied in several neoplasms, including cutaneous melanomas (CMs). In the literature, it has been demonstrated that macroH2A.1 levels gradually decrease during CM progression, and a high expression of macroH2A.1 in CM cells relates to a better prognosis. Although both uveal and cutaneous melanomas arise from melanocytes, uveal melanoma (UM) is biologically and genetically distinct from the more common cutaneous melanoma. Metastasis to the liver is a frequent occurrence in UM, and about 40%–50% of patients die of metastatic disease, even with early diagnosis, proper treatment, and close follow-up. We wanted to investigate macroH2A.1 immunohistochemical expression in UM. Our results demonstrated that mH2A.1 expression was higher in metastatic UM (21/23, 91.4%), while only 18/32 (56.3%). UMs without metastases showed mH2A.1 staining. These data could suggest a possible prognostic role for mH2A.1 and could form a basis for developing new pharmacological strategies for UM treatment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Binbin Xu ◽  
Ruiqi Ma ◽  
Hui Ren ◽  
Jiang Qian

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie A. Kolandjian ◽  
Sapna P. Patel ◽  
Nicholas E. Papadopoulos ◽  
Agop Y. Bedikian

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu F. Bakhoum ◽  
Ellis J. Curtis ◽  
Michael H. Goldbaum ◽  
Paul S. Mischel

AbstractUveal melanoma, the most common intraocular primary cancer in adults, is characterized by striking variability in metastatic tendencies. BAP1 deletion in the primary tumor is associated with uveal melanoma metastasis, but it cannot always be resolved by bulk DNA sequencing of heterogeneous tumors. Here, we show that assessment of BAP1 methylation is an accurate and readily clinically actionable assay to accurately identify high-risk uveal melanoma patients.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Coley ◽  
Christopher Long ◽  
Simrin Sennik ◽  
John Thorson ◽  
Jonathan Lin

Abstract Background: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary ocular tumor in adults and causes morbidity through lymphovascular metastasis. The presence of monosomy 3 in uveal melanomas is one of the most important prognostic indicators for metastasis. Two major molecular pathology testing modalities to assess monosomy 3 are fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Here, we report two cases of discordant monosomy 3 test results in uveal melanoma enucleation specimens using these molecular pathology tests.Case presentation: The first case is a uveal melanoma from a 51-year-old male that showed no evidence of monosomy 3 by CMA, but was subsequently detected by FISH. The second case is a uveal melanoma from a 49-year-old male that showed monosomy 3 at the limit of detection by CMA that was not detected by subsequent FISH.Conclusions: These two cases underscore the differences of each testing modality for monosomy 3. The high percentage of cells with one chromosome 3 signal requisite for a positive monosomy 3 FISH result may not be sensitive enough to detect a low level of monosomy 3 that CMA can detect. Conversely, a small uveal melanoma with monosomy 3 may be missed by CMA owing to background DNA from cytologically normal retina and other ocular tissues. Our cases suggest that both testing methods should be pursued for uveal melanoma, with a single positive result for either test interpreted as presence of monosomy 3.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Yang ◽  
Jinfeng Cao ◽  
Hans E. Grossniklaus

2010 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. L. Triozzi ◽  
A. D. Singh

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document