Melanoma remains mostly an untreatable fatal disease despite advances in decoding cancer genomics and developing new therapeutic modalities.,Progress in patient care would benefit from additional predictive models germane for human disease mechanisms, tumor heterogeneity, and therapeutic responses.,Toward this aim, this review documents comparative aspects of human and naturally occurring canine melanomas.,Clinical presentation, pathology, therapies, and genetic alterations are highlighted in the context of current basic and translational research in comparative oncology.,Somewhat distinct from sun exposure-related human cutaneous melanomas, there is growing evidence that a variety of gene copy number alterations and protein structure/function mutations play roles in canine melanomas, in circumstances more analogous to human mucosal melanomas and to some extent other melanomas with murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF), Neuroblastoma RAS Viral (V-Ras) Oncogene Homolog (NRAS), and neurofibromin 1 tumor suppressor NF1 triple wild-type genotype.,Gaps in canine genome annotation, as well as an insufficient number and depth of sequences covered, remain considerable barriers to progress and should be collectively addressed.,Preclinical approaches can be designed to include canine clinical trials addressing immune modulation as well as combined-targeted inhibition of Rat Sarcoma Superfamily/Mitogen-activated protein kinase (RAS/MAPK) and/or Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase/Protein Kinase B/Mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/AKT/mTOR) signal transduction, pathways frequently activated in both human and canine melanomas.,Future investment should be aimed towards improving understanding of canine melanoma as a predictive preclinical surrogate for human melanoma and for mutually benefiting these uniquely co-dependent species.
The prognostic significance of BRAF and NRAS mutations in metastatic melanoma patients remains uncertain, with several studies reporting conflicting results, often biased by the inclusion of patients treated with BRAF and MEK (MAPK) inhibitors.,We therefore interrogated a historical cohort of patients free of the confounding influence of MAPK inhibitor therapy.,Patients with available archival tissue first diagnosed with metastatic melanoma between 2002 and 2006 were analysed.,Mutational analysis was performed using the OncoCarta Panel.,Patient characteristics, treatment outcome and survival were correlated with BRAF/NRAS mutation status.,In 193 patients, 92 (48%) melanomas were BRAF-mutant, 39 (20%) were NRAS-mutant and 62 (32%) were wild-type for BRAF/NRAS mutations (wt).,There was no difference in response to chemotherapy based on mutation status (35-37%).,The distant disease-free interval (DDFI) was significantly shorter in patients with wt melanoma (27.9 months vs 35.1 for BRAF and 49.1 for NRAS) although this was not significant in multivariate analysis.,Survival from stage IV melanoma diagnosis was not significantly different based on mutation status.,The DDFI was significantly shorter in patients with BRAFV600K/R versus BRAFV600E melanoma in univariate and multivariate analyses.,BRAF and NRAS mutation status does not influence survival in metastatic melanoma.