Expert Histopathologic Evaluation and Molecular Analyses for Ambiguous Cutaneous Melanocytic Tumors
PURPOSE: A subset of cutaneous melanocytic tumors has ambiguous histopathologic features that preclude reliable classification as benign or malignant. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and long-term clinical validity of expert histopathologic evaluation and, when inconclusive, additional molecular analyses in patients with ambiguous primary cutaneous melanocytic tumors. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, consecutive patients with primary cutaneous melanocytic tumors deemed ambiguous by referring pathologists were evaluated at a tertiary dermatopathology referral center in the Netherlands from September 2018 through December 2021. Tumors underwent expert histopathologic evaluation, with next-generation sequencing, single-nucleotide polymorphism array, and targeted RNA sequencing when inconclusive. Tumors were classified as nonmelanoma, melanoma, or borderline melanoma. Clinical validity was assessed by melanoma-related events during follow-up. RESULTS: Among 258,562 patients with excised melanocytic tumors nationwide, 2,685 (1.0%) had ambiguous tumors. We included 994 patients and reached a diagnosis in 966 (97.2%): 417 (42.0%) after expert histopathologic evaluation alone and 549 (55.2%) after additional molecular analyses. Among 608 patients (61.2%) with a nonmelanoma diagnosis, no melanoma-related events occurred during median follow-up of 5.4 years (incidence, 0.0%; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.6). Among 358 patients (36.0%) with a melanoma diagnosis, 33 of 186 (17.7%) had a positive sentinel node biopsy, and 20 developed melanoma-related events during median follow-up of 5.0 years (cumulative incidence, 5.7%; 95% CI, 3.3 to 8.1). No events occurred in 28 patients (2.8%) with a borderline melanoma diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Expert histopathologic evaluation combined with molecular analyses provided a definitive diagnosis in nearly all patients with ambiguous primary cutaneous melanocytic tumors. Long-term follow-up supported the clinical validity of this stepwise diagnostic approach.
Authors
- Marijke R. van Dijk (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6344-5736)
- Willeke A.M. Blokx (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4647-8830)
- Chiel F Ebbelaar (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6656-8967)
- Lourens T. Bloem (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-8625)
- Remco van Doorn (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7019-6673)
- Anne M.L. Jansen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8793-0563)
- Anne M.R. Schrader (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3483-0558)
- Gerben Eise Breimer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0365-3667)
- Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3604-5430)
- Wendy W.J. de Leng (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2911-6018)
- Anthonie W.A. Lensing (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4595-7346)
- Martin H. Prins
- MOLecular Evaluation of Melanocytic Ambiguous Tumors (MOLEMAT) Investigators
Institutions
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- Maastricht University (NL)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2026-10-15
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco-26-00432
- Primary Topic
- Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00