Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (2): 262-269. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.02.009

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Clinicopathological features and prognosis of anorectal melanoma: A report of 68 cases

Yu-mei LAI1,Zhong-wu LI1,*(),Huan LI2,Yan WU1,Yun-fei SHI1,Li-xin ZHOU1,Yu-tong LOU1,Chuan-liang CUI3   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China
    2. Department of Pathology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital; School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University; Beijing 102218, China
    3. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Melanoma and Sarcoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China
  • Received:2022-10-13 Online:2023-04-18 Published:2023-04-12
  • Contact: Zhong-wu LI E-mail:zhwuli@hotmail.com

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological characteristics of anorectal mucosal melanoma (ARMM), and to evaluate the prognostic factors. Methods: A total of 68 primary ARMM surgical specimens from 2010 to 2018 were retrospectively studied. Slides were reviewed to evaluate pathological features. Slingluff staging method was used for staging. Results: (1) Clinical features: The median age at diagnosis in this group was 61.5 years, with a male-to-female ratio 1 ∶1.62. The most common complaint was blooding (49 cases). For anatomic site, anorectum was the prevalent (66.2%), followed by rectum (20.6%). At the time of diagnosis, 28 cases were stage Ⅰ (localized stage, 41.2%), 25 cases were stage Ⅱ (regional lymph node metastasis, 36.8%), and 15 cases were stage Ⅲ (distant metastasis, 22.1%). Five patients underwent wide local excision, the rest abdominoperineal resection, and 48 patients received adjuvant therapy after surgery. (2) Pathological features: Grossly 88.2% of the tumors were exophytic polypoid masses, with the median tumor size 3.5 cm and the median tumor thickness 1.25 cm. Depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae ranged from 0-5.00 cm (median 1.00 cm). The deepest site of tumor invasion reached muscular layer in 27 cases, and perirectal tissue in 16 cases. Melanin pigmentation was absent or not obvious in 67.6% of the cases. The predominant cytology was epithelioid (45 cases, 66.2%). The rate for ulceration, necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion was 89.7%, 35.3%, 55.9%, and 30.9%, respectively. The median mitotic count was 18/mm2. The positive rate of S100, HMB-45 and Melan-A were 92.0%, 92.6% and 98.0%, respectively. The median of Ki-67 was 50%. The incidences of mutations within CKIT, BRAF and NRAS genes were 17.0% (9 cases), 3.8% (2 cases) and 9.4% (5 cases), respectively. (3) Prognosis: Survival data were available in 66 patients, with a median follow-up of 17 months and a median survival time of 17.4 months. The 1-year, 2-year and 5-year overall survival rate was 76.8%, 36.8% and 17.2%, respectively. The rate of lymphatic metastasis at diagnosis was 56.3%. Forty-nine patients (84.5%) suffered from distant metastasis, and the most frequent metastatic site was liver. Univariate analysis revealed that tumor size (>3.5 cm), depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae (>1.0 cm), necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, BRAF gene mutation, lack of adjuvant therapy after surgery, deep site of tumor invasion, and high stage at diagnosis were all poor prognostic factors for overall survival. Multivariate model showed that lymphovascular invasion and BRAF gene mutation were independent risk factors for lower overall survival, and high stage at diagnosis showed borderline negative correlation with overall survival. Conclusion: The overall prognosis of ARMM is poor, and lymphovascular invasion and BRAF gene mutation are independent factors of poor prognosis. Slingluff staging suggests prognosis effectively, and detailed assessment of pathological features, clear staging and genetic testing should be carried out when possible. Depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae of the tumor might be a better prognostic indicator than tumor thickness.

Key words: Mucosal melanoma, Anorectal tumor, Clinicopathological features, Prognosis

CLC Number: 

  • R735.3

Table 1

Clinicopathological features of 68 anorectal melanoma cases"

Features Value Features Value
Gender Pigmentation
    Male 26 (38.2%)     Obvious 22 (32.4%)
    Female 42 (61.8%)     Not obvious 46 (67.6%)
Age/years Cytology*
    Median (range) 61.5 (43.0-99.0)     Epithelioid 45 (66.2%)
Anatomic site     Spindled 19 (27.9%)
    Rectum 14 (20.6%)     Nevoid 22 (32.4%)
    Anorectum 45 (66.2%)     Polymorphic 7 (10.3%)
    Anal canal 9 (13.2%) Ulceration
Stage at diagnosis     Yes 61 (89.7%)
    Ⅰ 28 (41.2%)     No 7 (10.3%)
    Ⅱ 25 (36.8%) Necrosis
    Ⅲ 15 (22.1%)     Yes 24 (35.3%)
Therapy     No 44 (64.7%)
    Surgery only 20 (29.4%) Lymphovascular invasion
    Adjuvant therapy after surgery 48 (70.6%)     Yes 38 (55.9%)
Surgery     No 30 (44.1%)
    WEL 6 (8.8%) Perineural invasion
    APR 62 (91.2%)     Yes 21 (30.9%)
Tumor size/cm     No 47 (69.1%)
    Median (range) 3.5 (0.5-8.5) Mitosis (per mm2)
    ≤2.0 13 (19.1%)     Median (range) 18 (2-59)
    2.1-4.0 33 (48.5%)     ≤10 17 (25.0%)
    4.1-6.0 14 (20.6%)     11-20 26 (38.2%)
    ≥6.1 8 (11.8%)     21-30 14 (20.6%)
Tumor thickness/cm     ≥31 11 (16.2%)
    Median (range) 1.25 (0.06-5.00) TILs
    ≤1.0 24 (35.3%)     Brisk 9 (13.2%)
    1.1-2.0 38 (55.9%)     Non-brisk 59 (86.8%)
    ≥2.1 6 (8.8%) Ki-67 (32 cases)
Depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae/cm     Median(range) 50% (10%-90%)
    Median (range) 1.0 (0-5.0) Gene mutations (53 cases)
    ≤1.0 35 (51.5%) CKIT mutation 9 (17.0%)
    1.1-2.0 29 (42.6%) BRAF mutation 2 (3.8%)
    ≥2.1 4 (5.9%) NRAS mutation 5 (9.4%)
Deepest site of tumor invasion     Wild types 37 (69.8%)
    Lamina propria 2 (2.9%)
    Submucosa 23 (33.8%)
    Muscular layer 27 (39.7%)
    Perirectal tissue 16 (23.5%)

Figure 1

Overall survival curve of 66 patients with anorectal melanoma    Figure 2    Univariate analysis of some characteristics associated with overall survival in 66 patients with anorectal melanoma 2A, stage at diagnosis; 2B, deepest site of tumor invasion; 2C, tumor size; 2D, depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae; 2E, lymphovascular invasion; 2F, genetic mutations; 2G, adjuvant therapy after surgery."

Table 2

Univariate analysis of prognostic factors of overall survival in 66 patients with anorectal melanoma"

Features No. of cases No. of death Median survival/months 95%CI χ2 P value
All patient 66 53 17.433 16.198-18.668
Gender
    Male 26 21 19.300 5.203-33.397
    Female 40 32 16.733 14.090-19.377 0.168 0.682
Age
    ≤61.5 years old 33 27 19.000 13.130-24.870
    >61.5 years old 33 26 16.633 11.607-21.659 0.240 0.624
Anatomic site
    Rectum 12 8 12.933 6.926-18.940
    Anorectum 45 37 16.733 12.479-20.988
    Anal canal 9 8 34.667 29.115-40.218 0.669 0.716
Stage at diagnosis
    Ⅰ 27 18 33.300 8.835-57.765
    Ⅱ 24 22 16.733 10.672-22.794
    Ⅲ 15 13 12.333 10.113-14.554 13.226 0.001*
Therapy
    Surgery only 18 17 14.100 8.326-19.874
    Adjuvant therapy after surgery 48 36 19.000 10.371-27.629 7.361 0.007*
Surgery
    WEL 6 4 18.533 12.652-24.415
    APR 60 49 17.267 15.003-19.531 0.687 0.407
Tumor size
    ≤3.5 cm 36 25 29.033 9.522-48.545
    >3.5 cm 30 28 12.933 11.934-13.933 8.607 0.003*
Tumor thickness
    ≤1.25 cm 32 25 21.700 16.196-27.204
    >1.25 cm 34 28 13.100 12.032-14.168 1.494 0.222
Depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae
    ≤1.0 cm 34 23 32.767 16.767-48.766
    >1.0 cm 32 30 12.767 11.736-13.797 13.189 < 0.001*
Deepest site of tumor invasion
    Lamina propria or submucosa 25 14 34.667 15.019-54.314
    Muscular layer 25 24 17.433 14.822-20.045
    Perirectal tissue 16 15 11.067 6.940-15.193 27.037 < 0.001*
Pigmentation
    Not obvious 44 33 19.000 12.744-25.256
    Obvious 22 20 13.533 6.041-21.026 2.804 0.094
Ulceration
    Yes 59 47 17.267 15.024-19.510
    No 7 6 42.133 18.096-66.170 1.072 0.300
Necrosis
    Yes 23 21 12.933 11.828-14.038
    No 43 32 25.100 10.006-40.194 20.243 < 0.001*
Lymphovascular invasion
    Yes 37 34 13.533 8.783-18.284
    No 29 19 32.767 18.918-46.616 10.003 0.002*
Perineural invasion
    Yes 21 19 12.933 11.692-14.175
    No 45 34 19.000 17.128-20.872 3.171 0.075
Mitosis
    ≤18/mm2 35 27 22.467 13.117-31.816
    >18/mm2 31 26 13.533 9.084-17.983 3.855 0.050
TILs
    Brisk 8 8 18.333 10.387-26.279
    Non-brisk 58 45 17.267 14.467-20.066 0.146 0.703
Ki-67 (31 cases)
    ≤50% 17 14 18.533 14.027-23.040
    >50% 14 9 29.033 0.000-58.490 1.587 0.208
Gene mutations (52 cases)
    CKIT mutation 8 7 17.267 9.505-25.028
    BRAF mutation 2 2 3.700
    NRAS mutation 5 5 16.200 9.186-23.214
    Wild types 37 28 18.333 14.651-22.016 32.244 < 0.001*

Table 3

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of overall survival in 66 patients with anorectal melanoma"

Features HR value 95%CI P value
Stage at diagnosis
    Ⅱ vs. Ⅰ 1.995 0.742-5.362 0.171
    Ⅲ vs. Ⅰ 2.790 0.941-8.272 0.064
Therapy (adjuvant therapy after surgery vs. surgery only) 0.647 0.282-1.482 0.303
Tumor size (>3.5 cm vs. ≤3.5 cm) 1.755 0.796-3.872 0.164
Depth of invasion below lamina muscularis mucosae (>1.0 cm vs.≤1 cm) 1.027 0.407-2.592 0.954
Deepest site of tumor invasion 1.091 0.573-2.075 0.791
    Muscular layer vs. lamina propria or submucosa 1.332 0.535-3.316 0.538
    Perirectal tissue vs. lamina propria or submucosa 1.542 0.383-6.203 0.542
Lymphovascular invasion (yes vs. no) 2.929 1.261-6.804 0.012
Gene mutations
    CKIT mutation vs. wild types 1.543 0.576-4.132 0.388
    BRAF mutation vs. wild types 110.292 12.244-993.515 < 0.001
    NRAS mutation vs. wild types 2.311 0.731-7.311 0.154
1 Heppt MV , Roesch A , Weide B , et al. Prognostic factors and treatment outcomes in 444 patients with mucosal melanoma[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2017, 81, 36- 44.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.05.014
2 Schaefer T , Satzger I , Gutzmer R . Clinics, prognosis and new therapeutic options in patients with mucosal melanoma: A retrospective analysis of 75 patients[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96 (1): e5753.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005753
3 Singer M , Mutch MG . Anal melanoma[J]. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2006, 19 (2): 78- 87.
doi: 10.1055/s-2006-942348
4 Sarac E , Amaral T , Keim U , et al. Prognostic factors in 161 patients with mucosal melanoma: A study of German Central Malignant Melanoma Registry[J]. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2020, 34 (9): 2021- 2025.
doi: 10.1111/jdv.16306
5 Ren M , Lu Y , Lv J , et al. Prognostic factors in primary anorectal melanoma: A clinicopathological study of 60 cases in China[J]. Hum Pathol, 2018, 79, 77- 85.
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.05.004
6 黄书亮, 王晓童, 张红莺. 肛管直肠恶性黑色素瘤的临床病理特征分析[J]. 中国肿瘤外科杂志, 2021, 13 (2): 167- 171.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4136.2021.02.013
7 刘丽男, 李奕. 肛管直肠恶性黑色素瘤52例临床病理分析[J]. 中国误诊学杂志, 2008, 8 (10): 2435- 2436.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6647.2008.10.160
8 Li H , Yang L , Lai Y , et al. Genetic alteration of Chinese patients with rectal mucosal melanoma[J]. BMC Cancer, 2021, 21 (1): 623.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08383-6
9 Slingluff CL , Jr. Vollmer RT , Seigler HF . Anorectal melanoma: Clinical characteristics and results of surgical management in twenty-four patients[J]. Surgery, 1990, 107 (1): 1- 9.
10 Bai X , Kong Y , Chi Z , et al. MAPK pathway and TERT promoter gene mutation pattern and its prognostic value in melanoma patients: A retrospective study of 2 793 cases[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2017, 23 (20): 6120- 6127.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0980
11 Kanaan Z , Mulhall A , Mahid S , et al. A systematic review of prognosis and therapy of anal malignant melanoma: A plea for more precise reporting of location and thickness[J]. Am Surg, 2012, 78 (1): 28- 35.
12 裴炜, 周海涛, 陈佳楠, 等. 64例肛管直肠恶性黑色素瘤外科治疗及预后因素分析[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2016, 19 (11): 1305- 1308.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2016.11.021
13 周代超, 刘翠平, 高蕾, 等. 肛管直肠恶性黑色素瘤36例诊治及预后分析[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2017, 44 (14): 717- 721.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2017.14.430
14 冯亚光, 韩灵雨, 徐烨, 等. 原发性肛管直肠恶性黑色素瘤的临床特征和预后因素研究[J]. 中华消化杂志, 2021, 41 (4): 247- 252.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn311367-20200709-00435
15 Chen H , Cai Y , Liu Y , et al. Incidence, surgical treatment, and prognosis of anorectal melanoma from 1973 to 2011: A population-based SEER analysis[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2016, 95 (7): e2770.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002770
16 Nagarajan P , Piao J , Ning J , et al. Prognostic model for patient survival in primary anorectal mucosal melanoma: Stage at presentation determines relevance of histopathologic features[J]. Mod Pathol, 2020, 33 (3): 496- 513.
doi: 10.1038/s41379-019-0340-7
17 Dodds TJ , Wilmott JS , Jackett LA , et al. Primary anorectal melanoma: Clinical, immunohistology and DNA analysis of 43 cases[J]. Pathology, 2019, 51 (1): 39- 45.
18 Wang M , Zhang Z , Zhu J , et al. Tumour diameter is a predictor of mesorectal and mesenteric lymph node metastases in anorectal melanoma[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2013, 15 (9): 1086- 1092.
19 Perez DR , Trakarnsanga A , Shia J , et al. Locoregional lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of anorectal melanoma[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2013, 20 (7): 2339- 2344.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2812-6
20 Ballo MT , Gershenwald JE , Zagars GK , et al. Sphincter-sparing local excision and adjuvant radiation for anal-rectal melanoma[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2002, 20 (23): 4555- 4558.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.03.002
21 Yeh JJ , Shia J , Hwu WJ , et al. The role of abdominoperineal resection as surgical therapy for anorectal melanoma[J]. Ann Surg, 2006, 244 (6): 1012- 1017.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000225114.56565.f9
22 Falch C , Stojadinovic A , Hann-von-Weyhern C , et al. Anorectal malignant melanoma: Extensive 45-year review and proposal for a novel staging classification[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2013, 217 (2): 324- 335.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.02.031
23 Menon H , Patel RR , Cushman TR , et al. Management and outcomes of primary anorectal melanoma in the United States[J]. Future Oncol, 2020, 16 (8): 329- 338.
doi: 10.2217/fon-2019-0715
24 Jutten E , Kruijff S , Francken AB , et al. Survival following surgical treatment for anorectal melanoma seems similar for local excision and extensive resection regardless of nodal involvement[J]. Surg Oncol, 2021, 37, 101558.
doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101558
25 Ogata D , Tsutsui K , Namikawa K , et al. Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors in 47 patients with primary anorectal malignant melanoma in the immune therapy era[J]. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2022,
doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-03933-2
26 Santi R , Simi L , Fucci R , et al. KIT genetic alterations in anorectal melanomas[J]. J Clin Pathol, 2015, 68 (2): 130- 134.
doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202572
[1] Junyong OU,Kunming NI,Lulin MA,Guoliang WANG,Ye YAN,Bin YANG,Gengwu LI,Haodong SONG,Min LU,Jianfei YE,Shudong ZHANG. Prognostic factors of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer with intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 582-588.
[2] Shuai LIU,Lei LIU,Zhuo LIU,Fan ZHANG,Lulin MA,Xiaojun TIAN,Xiaofei HOU,Guoliang WANG,Lei ZHAO,Shudong ZHANG. Clinical treatment and prognosis of adrenocortical carcinoma with venous tumor thrombus [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 624-630.
[3] Le YU,Shaohui DENG,Fan ZHANG,Ye YAN,Jianfei YE,Shudong ZHANG. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 661-666.
[4] Zezhen ZHOU,Shaohui DENG,Ye YAN,Fan ZHANG,Yichang HAO,Liyuan GE,Hongxian ZHANG,Guoliang WANG,Shudong ZHANG. Predicting the 3-year tumor-specific survival in patients with T3a non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 673-679.
[5] Yangyi FANG,Qiang LI,Zhigao HUANG,Min LU,Kai HONG,Shudong ZHANG. Well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour of the tunica vaginalis: A case report [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 741-744.
[6] Yuanyuan ZENG,Yun XIE,Daonan CHEN,Ruilan WANG. Related factors of euthyroid sick syndrome in patients with sepsis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(3): 526-532.
[7] Jian-bin LI,Meng-na LYU,Qiang CHI,Yi-lin PENG,Peng-cheng LIU,Rui WU. Early prediction of severe COVID-19 in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(6): 1007-1012.
[8] Huan-rui LIU,Xiang PENG,Sen-lin LI,Xin GOU. Risk modeling based on HER-2 related genes for bladder cancer survival prognosis assessment [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 793-801.
[9] Zi-xuan XUE,Shi-ying TANG,Min QIU,Cheng LIU,Xiao-jun TIAN,Min LU,Jing-han DONG,Lu-lin MA,Shu-dong ZHANG. Clinicopathologic features and prognosis of young renal tumors with tumor thrombus [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 802-811.
[10] Han LU,Jian-yun ZHANG,Rong YANG,Le XU,Qing-xiang LI,Yu-xing GUO,Chuan-bin GUO. Clinical factors affecting the prognosis of lower gingival squamous cell carcinoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(4): 702-707.
[11] Yun-fei SHI,Hao-jie WANG,Wei-ping LIU,Lan MI,Meng-ping LONG,Yan-fei LIU,Yu-mei LAI,Li-xin ZHOU,Xin-ting DIAO,Xiang-hong LI. Analysis of clinicopathological and molecular abnormalities of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(3): 521-529.
[12] Xiao-juan ZHU,Hong ZHANG,Shuang ZHANG,Dong LI,Xin LI,Ling XU,Ting LI. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of breast cancer with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 low expression [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 243-253.
[13] Qi SHEN,Yi-xiao LIU,Qun HE. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma of kidney: Clinicopathology and prognosis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 276-282.
[14] Qian SU,Xin PENG,Chuan-xiang ZHOU,Guang-yan YU. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in oral and maxillofacial regions: An analysis of 369 cases [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(1): 13-21.
[15] Quan ZHANG,Hai-feng SONG,Bing-lei MA,Zhe-nan ZHANG,Chao-hui ZHOU,Ao-lin LI,Jun LIU,Lei LIANG,Shi-yu ZHU,Qian ZHANG. Pre-operative prognostic nutritional index as a predictive factor for prognosis in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with surgery [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(1): 149-155.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd