Melanoma is a major public health concern that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in countries such as New Zealand and Australia where it is the commonest cause of cancer death in young adults. Until recently, there were no effective drug therapies for patients with advanced melanoma however significant advances in our understanding of the biological and molecular basis of melanoma in recent decades have led to the development of revolutionary treatments, including targeted molecular therapy and immunotherapy. This review summarizes our current understanding of the key events in the pathway of melanomagenesis and discusses the role of genomic analysis as a potential tool for improved diagnostic evaluation, prognostication and treatment strategies. Ultimately, it is hoped that a continued deeper understanding of the mechanisms of melanomagenesis will lead to the development of even more effective treatments that continue to provide better outcomes for patients with melanoma.

Tumor thickness is the strongest predictor of outcome for clinically localized melanoma. Therefore, accurate assessment is critical for appropriate staging, reliable estimation of prognosis, and management. When melanoma extends alongside skin adnexal structures more deeply than the main tumor mass (periadnexal extension), it is currently unknown whether the prognosis is more accurately reflected by the deepest point of periadnexal tumor extension or the main tumor mass. This study sought to address this question. Survival outcomes of 257 primary cutaneous melanoma patients with periadnexal extension diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 and managed at Melanoma Institute Australia were identified and compared with a control cohort of 514 patients who were matched for tumor thickness, sex, age, mitotic rate, ulceration status, and year of diagnosis but lacked periadnexal extension. The incidence of periadnexal extension at Melanoma Institute Australia was 1.5% (257/16,692 cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015). The patient characteristics between the 2 groups were otherwise very similar; median Breslow thickness was 0.9 mm for the periadnexal group and 1.0 mm for the control group. The median extension beyond the Breslow thickness in the tumors with periadnexal extension was 0.45 mm (mean, 0.4 mm). Median follow-up was 46 months for the periadnexal group and 44 months for the control group. Measures of clinical outcomes all showed trends for improved survival in the periadnexal extension group; these were melanoma-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44, 1.38), overall survival (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59, 1.41), disease-free survival (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45, 1.03), and distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.4, 1.17), although none were statistically significant. There was a higher rate of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in the periadnexal group versus the control group in patients whose tumors were >1 mm thick (24/100=24% vs. 23/187=12.3%). Periadnexal extension was significantly associated with SLN metastasis on univariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.25 [1.20, 4.24], P=0.01). If the periadnexal extension had been included in the measurement of tumor thickness, 42.8% of patients would have been upstaged to a higher American Joint Committee on Cancer T category. The findings of this study indicate that periadnexal involvement that extends more deeply than the thickness of the main tumor mass increases the risk of SLN metastasis in tumours >1 mm thick, however, does not worsen clinical outcomes overall, and tumor thickness measurements should not include deeper foci of periadnexal tumor.

Primary cutaneous neoplasms that lack definitive histologic and immunophenotypic evidence of differentiation are a heterogeneous group of tumors with diverse prognoses and management options. These include undifferentiated and dedifferentiated melanoma (UM/DM), atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX), pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS), and sarcomatoid squamous cell carcinoma. Diagnosis requires careful correlation between the clinicopathologic and molecular features, and the finding of a MAPK pathway variant commonly associated with melanoma may support the diagnosis of melanoma over other tumors in this group. To examine the frequency of typical melanoma-associated MAPK pathway-related variants (BRAF, NRAS, KIT, GNAQ, GNA11) among a cohort of primary cutaneous sarcomatoid neoplasms, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 37 cases of immunohistologically unclassifiable primary cutaneous neoplasms, submitted for targeted NGS analysis. All cases lacked a history of a prior relevant tumor, were negative for melanocytic markers (S100, SOX10, HMB45, and Melan-A), or showed <5% staining with 1 or 2 of these markers. Other lineage markers were negative. We identified typical melanoma driver variants in 7 cases (7/37, 19%), including NRAS (5/37, 14%), KIT (1/37, 3%), and GNAQ (1/37, 3%). There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumor site, or mitotic rate between patients with and without a melanoma driver variant. Melanoma cases were thicker (16.3 vs. 9.25 mm, P=0.041) and more likely to show epithelioid cell phenotype (P=0.008). In our cohort, nearly 20% of patients with immunohistologically unclassifiable cutaneous tumors could be reclassified as having primary UM/DM after molecular testing, thereby opening alternative management pathways.