Loss of the NF1 allele, coding for the protein neurofibromin, and polymorphism in the proto-oncogene RET (RETp) are purportedly common in desmoplastic melanoma (DM). DM is categorized into pure (PDM) and mixed (MDM) subtypes, which differ in prognosis. Most NF1 mutations result in a truncated/absent protein, making immunohistochemical screening for neurofibromin an ideal surrogate for NF1 allelic loss. Using antineurofibromin, our aims were to ascertain the incidence of neurofibromin loss in DM subtypes and to evaluate the relationship with RET, perineural invasion (PNI) and established histopathologic prognosticators. A total of 78 archival samples of DM met criteria for inclusion (54 cases of non-DM serving as controls). Immunohistochemistry was performed for neurofibromin, whereas direct DNA sequencing was used for RETp and BRAF mutation status. Statistical analyses included χ2 test as well as Fisher exact test. Neurofibromin loss was more common in DM than non-DM (69% versus 54%; P = .02). In DM, significant differences in neurofibromin loss were noted in the following: non–head and neck versus head and neck biopsy site (88% versus 55%) and PDM versus MDM variants (80% versus 56%). No significant associations were noted with sex, presence of a junctional component, Breslow depth, ulceration, mitoses, host response, RETp, BRAF status, or PNI. RETp was marginally associated with PNI-positive DM versus PNI-negative DM (36 versus 18%; P = .08). Our findings, the largest to date investigating neurofibromin in DM, validate the incidence of NF1 mutations/allelic loss in DM and suggest that the DM subtypes have distinct genetic drivers.

The relationship between microvessel density (MVD), lymphovascular density (LVD), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) remains unclear. Given this, a total of 102 PCMs were assessed for MVD (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 and Endocan), LVD (D2-40), and LVI (immunostaining with D2-40/S-100 and hematoxylin and eosin); tumoral S-100A13, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, and Endocan; and BRAF status. LVD was associated with MVD (P = .01). MVD was higher in PCMs with depth greater than or equal to 2 mm and ulceration (P = .04, .05), whereas LVD was higher in PCMs with depth greater than or equal to 2 mm and mitoses (P = .03, .02). After adjusting for MVD and LVD, only ulceration was associated with LVI (P < .02). A BRAF mutation was seen in 30.4% cases, and when present, both LVD and host response (P = .0008 and .04, respectively) were significantly associated with MVD. Immunostaining with S-100A13 was noted in 99% of cases and a significant association noted only with ulceration (P = .05). Immunostaining increased LVI positivity (46.5% versus 4.9% by hematoxylin and eosin, P < .0001). MVD and LVD are not associated with LVI, appear to be closely related with each other, and are associated with select markers of poor prognosticative value. The association between a host response and LVD and MVD in PCMs with a BRAF mutation suggests that they exhibit potential for strategizing immunotherapies.