According to the divergent pathway model, cutaneous melanoma comprises a nevogenic group with a propensity to melanocyte proliferation and another one associated with cumulative solar damage (CSD). While characterized clinically and epidemiologically, the differences in the molecular profiles between the groups have remained primarily uninvestigated. This study has used a custom gene panel and bioinformatics tools to investigate the potential molecular differences in a thoroughly characterized cohort of 119 melanoma patients belonging to nevogenic and CSD groups. We found that the nevogenic melanomas had a restricted set of mutations, with the prominently mutated gene being BRAF. The CSD melanomas, in contrast, showed mutations in a diverse group of genes that included NF1, ROS1, GNA11, and RAC1. We thus provide evidence that nevogenic and CSD melanomas constitute different biological entities and highlight the need to explore new targeted therapies.

Background: Angiosarcomas (ASs) represent a heterogeneous and highly aggressive subset of tumors that respond poorly to systemic treatments and are associated with short progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The aim of this study was to develop and validate an immune-related prognostic model—termed the AS score—using data from two independent sarcoma cohorts. Methods: A prognostic model was developed using a previously characterized cohort of 25 angiosarcoma samples. Candidate genes were identified via the Maxstat algorithm (Maxstat v0.7-25 for R), combined with log-rank testing. The AS score was then computed by weighing normalized gene expression levels according to Cox regression coefficients. For external validation, transcriptomic data from TCGA Sarcoma cohort (n = 253) were analyzed. The Immunoscore—which reflects the tumor immune microenvironment—was inferred using the ESTIMATE package (v1.0.13) in R. All statistical analyses were performed in RStudio (v 4.0.3). Results: Four genes—IGF1R, MAP2K1, SERPINE1, and TCF12—were ultimately selected to construct the prognostic model. The resulting AS score enabled the classification of angiosarcoma cases into two prognostically distinct groups (p = 0.00012). Cases with high AS score values, which included both cutaneous and non-cutaneous forms, exhibited significantly poorer outcomes, whereas cases with low AS scores were predominantly cutaneous. A significant association was observed between the AS score and the Immunoscore (p = 0.025), with higher Immunoscore values found in high-AS score tumors. Validation using TCGA sarcoma cohort confirmed the prognostic value of both the AS score (p = 0.0066) and the Immunoscore (p = 0.0029), with a strong correlation between their continuous values (p = 2.9 × 10⁻⁸). Further survival analysis, integrating categorized scores into four groups, demonstrated robust prognostic significance (p = 0.00021). Notably, in tumors with a low Immunoscore, AS score stratification was not prognostic. In contrast, among cases with a high Immunoscore, the AS score effectively distinguished outcomes (p < 0.0001), identifying a subgroup with poor prognosis but potential sensitivity to immunotherapy. Conclusions: This combined classification using the AS score and Immunoscore has prognostic relevance in sarcoma, suggesting that angiosarcomas with an immunologically active microenvironment (high Immunoscore) and poor prognosis (high AS score) may be prime candidates for immunotherapy and this approach warrants prospective validation.