The approval of vemurafenib in the US 2011 and in Europe 2012 improved the therapy of not resectable or metastatic melanoma.,Patients carrying a substitution of valine to glutamic acid at codon 600 (p.V600E) or a substitution of valine to leucine (p.V600K) in BRAF show complete or partial response.,Therefore, the precise identification of the underlying somatic mutations is essential.,Herein, we evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and feasibility of six different methods for the detection of BRAF mutations.,Samples harboring p.V600E mutations as well as rare mutations in BRAF exon 15 were compared to wildtype samples.,DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues by manual micro-dissection and automated extraction.,BRAF mutational analysis was carried out by high resolution melting (HRM) analysis, pyrosequencing, allele specific PCR, next generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC).,All mutations were independently reassessed by Sanger sequencing.,Due to the limited tumor tissue available different numbers of samples were analyzed with each method (82, 72, 60, 72, 49 and 82 respectively).,There was no difference in sensitivity between the HRM analysis and Sanger sequencing (98%).,All mutations down to 6.6% allele frequency could be detected with 100% specificity.,In contrast, pyrosequencing detected 100% of the mutations down to 5% allele frequency but exhibited only 90% specificity.,The allele specific PCR failed to detect 16.3% of the mutations eligible for therapy with vemurafenib.,NGS could analyze 100% of the cases with 100% specificity but exhibited 97.5% sensitivity.,IHC showed once cross-reactivity with p.V600R but was a good amendment to HRM.,Therefore, at present, a combination of HRM and IHC is recommended to increase sensitivity and specificity for routine diagnostic to fulfill the European requirements concerning vemurafenib therapy of melanoma patients.
BAP1 has been shown to be a target of both somatic alteration in high-risk ocular melanomas (OM) and germline inactivation in a few individuals from cancer-prone families.,These findings suggest that constitutional BAP1 changes may predispose individuals to metastatic OM and that familial permeation of deleterious alleles could delineate a new cancer syndrome.,To characterize BAP1's contribution to melanoma risk, we sequenced BAP1 in a set of 100 patients with OM, including 50 metastatic OM cases and 50 matched non-metastatic OM controls, and 200 individuals with cutaneous melanoma (CM) including 7 CM patients from CM-OM families and 193 CM patients from CM-non-OM kindreds.,Germline BAP1 mutations were detected in 4/50 patients with metastatic OM and 0/50 cases of non-metastatic OM (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.059).,Since 2/4 of the BAP1 carriers reported a family history of CM, we analyzed 200 additional hereditary CM patients and found mutations in 2/7 CM probands from CM-OM families and 1/193 probands from CM-non-OM kindreds (29% vs.,0.52%, p = .003).,Germline mutations co-segregated with both CM and OM phenotypes and were associated with the presence of unique nevoid melanomas and highly atypical nevoid melanoma-like melanocytic proliferations (NEMMPs).,Interestingly, 7/14 germline variants identified to date reside in C-terminus suggesting that the BRCA1 binding domain is important in cancer predisposition.,Germline BAP1 mutations are associated with a more aggressive OM phenotype and a recurrent phenotypic complex of cutaneous/ocular melanoma, atypical melanocytic proliferations and other internal neoplasms (ie.,COMMON syndrome), which could be a useful clinical marker for constitutive BAP1 inactivation.