Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(1):e2020005 1 Dermatology Practical & Conceptual Melanocytic tumors are currently classified as nevi, consid- ered benign; melanomas, considered malignant; and mela- nocytomas, considered borderline tumors [1]. However, recent studies on the genetic aberrations tend to make this classification problematic. In fact, the genomic analysis shows that both nevi and melanomas present mutations activating a certain number of growth-promoting signaling pathways. Tumors labeled as nevi and considered to be benign generally have a single or a small number of pathogenic mutations, often activating the MAP-kinase pathway (driver mutations), but no apparent additional genomic alterations. Tumors labeled as melanomas and considered to be malignant may harbor the same driver mutations detected in those labeled nevi, associated with a variable, generally high, number of additional mutations tending to ablate tumor-suppression mechanisms and to activate additional oncogenic pathways, including CDKN2A, PTEN, TP53, and TERT-promoter mutations (promoting mutations). Tumors histologically regarded as problematic, sometimes termed melanocytomas or MELTUMPs, harbor the same driver mutations detected in “nevi” and in “melanomas,” but a lower number of pro- moting mutations than “melanomas” [1-4]. The study of the distribution of pathogenic mutations has suggested they may occur in certain characteristic sequences [1]. The initial event is often represented by a single mutation, which appears to be different in the different types of lesions: BRAF in com- mon nevi; N-RAS in some congenital and some acquired nevi; GNAQ or GNA11 in blue nevi; kinase fusions of ALK, BRAF, ROS1, NTRK1, NTRK3, MET, RET, or MAP3K8 in Spitz nevi; and kinase fusion of NTRK3 in spindle cell nevi of Reed [1,5-15]. Moreover, in some BRAF-mutated neoplasms, more specific histological and biological characteristics may be produced by a supervening driver mutation, just as BAP1 mutation in BAP1-inactivated nevus, CTNNB1 in deep penetrating nevus, and PRKAR1A in epithelioid blue nevus/ pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma [16-20]. Subsequently, other driver and/or promoting mutations may be progres- sively acquired, because driver mutations tend to induce an increase of cellular proliferation and, consequently, an increase of the probability that additional mutations occur. These supervened genomic aberrations may be ineffective or capable to alter, lightly or severely, a certain number of cell proliferation control mechanisms. If effective, they may lead to an additional enhancement of cell proliferation and, con- sequently, to an additional probability that other mutations take place, and so forth [1-4]. Therefore, in any given tumor, the total amount of the acquired mutations produces a certain risk of neoplastic progression, parallel to a certain risk of Melanocytic Skin Tumors: Genetic Aberrations and Clinicopathological Classification Carmelo Urso1 1 Dermatopathology Study Center of Florence, Florence, Italy Key words: melanocytic nevus melanoma, melanocytomas, genetic aberrations, classification Citation: Urso C. Melanocytic skin tumors: genetic aberrations and clinicopathological classification. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020;10(1):e2020005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1001a05 Accepted: September 29, 2019; Published: December 31, 2019 Copyright: ©2019 Urso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: None. Competing interests: The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Authorship: The author takes responsibility for this publication. Corresponding author: Carmelo Urso, MD, Dermatopathology Study Center of Florence, Via Della Cernaia, 88, I-50129 Florence, Italy. Email: cylaur@libero.it mailto:cylaur@libero.it 2 Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(1):e2020005 the only common denominators are that “nevi” harbor a single mutation or few more, producing a minimal malignant potential, the amount of which, however, can be different in the different histological types of nevus; “melanomas” show a variable, relatively high, number of additional promoting mutations, producing a high malignant potential, the amount of which, however, can be different in the different histologi- cal types of melanomas; “melanocytomas” harbor a relatively small number of additional promoting mutations, producing a relatively low malignant potential, the amount of which, however, can be different in the different histological types of melanocytomas. In short, rather than specific diagnoses, the current diagnostic categories nevus, melanoma, and melano- cytoma emerge as generic terms encompassing a great number of heterogeneous unrelated tumors, different in their genetic profiles, in their clinical and histological morphology, and in their malignant potential. Conclusions Genetic studies suggest that the current classification of melanocytic tumors needs to be critically reevaluated and opportunely updated. In particular, 2 points seem to be put forward by genomic analyses and considered: (1) melano- cytic neoplasms sharing the same driver mutations, and consequently having the same pathogenesis, show strong clinicopathological similarities and may constitute a single class of neoplasms or a unique neoplasm; and (2) the malig- nant potential of every single neoplasm could be potentially estimable, by matching the pathogenic mutational burden with the follow-up data of the patients. References 1. Bastian BC, de la Fouchardiere A, Elder DE, et al. Genomic land- scape of melanoma. In: Elder DE, Massi D, Scolyer RA, Willemze R, eds. WHO Classification of Skin Tumours. 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC; 2018:72-75. 2. Potrony M, Badenas C, Aguilera P, et al. Update in genetic suscep- tibility in melanoma. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3(15):210. 3. Shain AH, Yeh I, Kovalyshyn I, et al. The genetic evolution of mel- anoma from precursor lesions. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1926- 1936. 4. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Genomic classification of cuta- neous melanoma. Cell. 2015;161(7):1681-1696. 5. Pollock PM, Harper UL, Hansen KS, et al. High frequency of BRAF mutations in nevi. Nat Genet. 2003;33(1):19-20. 6. Ichii-Nakato N, Takata M, Takayanagi S, et al. High frequency of BRAF600 mutation in acquired nevi and small congenital nevi, but low frequency of mutation in medium sized congenital nevi. J Invest Dermatol. 2006;126(9):2111-2118. 7. Bauer J, Curtin JA, Pinkel D, Bastian BC. Congenital melanocytic nevi frequently harbor NRAS mutations but no BRAF mutations. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(1):179-182. unfavorable events (recurrences, local and distant metastases, or death). This dual risk can be considered the malignant potential of the tumor, definable as the probability that a certain number of adverse events may occur and directly proportional to the global pathogenic mutational burden. When genetic alterations are small in number, limited to the driver mutation or few more, this potential is low or very low, adverse events are rare or very rare, and, clinically, the tumor appears as benign. When genetic alterations are numerous, including driver and promoting mutations, the malignant potential is high, adverse events are frequent, and, clinically, the tumor appears as malignant. Of course, all intermediate cases may exist, because the malignant potential may theo- retically assume every value between a minimum value (>0) and a maximum one (=100). The lowest possible value is >0, because all melanocytic tumors harbor at least 1 genomic alteration affecting the proliferation control mechanisms, and this inevitably implies a certain risk (risk 0 is to be reserved to the healthy skin, in which melanocytes harbor no pathogenic mutations). In sum, there do not seem to exist tumors with no chromosomal aberrations and consequently with no risk (risk = 0) and, at the same time, there seem to exist very few, if any, tumors harboring the totality of the possible chro- mosomal aberrations and, consequently, with the maximum possible risk (risk = 100). Tumors tend to show a certain variable number of pathogenic mutations and consequently may have all possible levels of risk, the malignant potential ranging between >0 and 100. Sic stantibus rebus, the concept that melanocytic tumors can be only either benign or malignant, comes to be hardly applicable [1] because no tumor has malignant potential =0 and few, if any, have a malignant potential =100. This may produce 2 important conceptual and practical effects on the current clinicopathological classification of melanocytic skin tumors. The first is that the great majority of melanocytic tumors, having a malignant potential of intermediate value, ranging between these extremes, tend to appear as “bor- derline or intermediate,” between “fully benign” and “fully malignant” tumors. Paradoxically, virtually all melanocytic neoplasms seem to be attributable to an “intermediate” category, currently considered only as a very small and very narrow area, between the much larger categories of nevi and melanomas. The second is that the categorization of melano- cytic tumors into nevi and melanomas appears simplistic and/ or inadequate. In fact, the diagnostic categories of nevus, mel- anoma, and melanocytoma do not appear as 3 definite tumors with specific clinical, histological, and genetic characteristics, but as 3 large, heterogeneous assemblages of melanocytic tumors. Each of these 3 categories encompasses a mixture of dissimilar tumors, different because they have different driver events and, therefore, different pathogeneses and different clinicopathological features. In each of these 3 categories, Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(1):e2020005 3 15. VandenBoom T, Quan VL, Zhang B, et al. Genomic fusions in pigmented spindle cell nevus of Reed. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(8):1042-1051. 16. Wiesner T, Murali R, Fried I, et al. A distinct subset of atypical Spitz tumors is characterized by BRAF mutation and loss of BAP1 expression. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(6):818-830. 17. Yeh I, Lang UE, Durieux E, et al. Combined activation of MAP kinase pathway and β-catenin signaling cause deep penetrating nevi. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):644. 18. Zembowicz A, Knoepp SM, Bei T, et al. Loss of expression of protein kinase A regulatory subunit 1α in pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma but not in melanoma or other melanocytic lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(11):1764-1775. 19. Bahrami A, Lee S, Wu G, et al. Pigment-synthesizing melanocytic neoplasm with protein kinase C alpha (PRKCA) fusion. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152 (3):318-322. 20. Cohen JN, Joseph NM, North JP, et al. Genomic analysis of pigmented epithelioid melanocytomas reveals recurrent alter- ations in PRKAR1A, and PRKCA genes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(10):1333-1346. 8. Wiesner T, He J, Yelensky R, et al. Kinase fusions are fre- quent in Spitz tumors and spitzoid melanomas. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3116. 9. Yeh I, Botton T, Talevich E, et al. Activating MET kinase rear- rangements in melanoma and Spitz tumours. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7174. 10. Yeh I, Tee MK, Botton T, et al. NTRK3 in Spitz tumors. J Pathol. 2016;240(3):282-290. 11. Van Raamsdong CD, Bezrookove V, Green G, et al. Frequent somatic mutation of GNAQ in uveal melanoma and blue nevi. Nature. 2009;457(7229):599-602. 12. Lamba S, Felicioni L, Buttitta F, et al. Mutational profile of GN- AQQ209 in human tumors. PLoS One. 2009;4(8):e6833. 13. Van Raamsdong CD, Griewank KG, Crosby MB, et al. Mutation in GNA11 in uveal melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(23):2191- 2199. 14. Newman S, Fan L, Pribnow A, et al. Clinical genome sequenc- ing uncovers potentially targetable truncations and fusions of MAP3K8 in spitzoid and other melanomas. Nat Med. 2019;25(4):597-602.