SOMATIC GENE VARIANTS IN UNRESECTABLE CUTANEOUS MELANOMA CELLS AND DETECTION OF PHARMACOGENOMIC MARKERS: INFLUENCE ON STRATEGY OF EFFECTIVE CANCER TREATMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/exp-oncology.2025.03.288Keywords:
NGS, clinical relevance, gene variants, melanoma, pharmacogenomic markers, effective cancer treatmentAbstract
The study aimed to identify the clinically relevant gene variants in unresectable cutaneous melanoma samples from Ukrainian patients using NGS technology and to investigate some pharmacogenomic markers useful for the development of cancer treat- ment strategies. Materials and Methods. 30 samples of unresectable cutaneous melanomas of various localizations and differen- tiation grades were analyzed. The Ion Torrent NGS technology of targeted gene sequencing (Custom AmpliSeq™ Cancer hotspot and Pharmacogenomic panels) was applied to identify the genetic alterations, which were classifi d using franklin by Gennox database and custom pharmacogenomic Ion Reporter Software pipeline. Results. A total of 148 different gene alterations were identifi d in 40 genes (SNVs, MNVs, INdELs) by the Cancer hotspot Panel, revealing the mutation patterns consistent with the international data. however, notable discrepancies exist, such as a high KRAS mutation rate (29.3%), predominantly in stage III tumors, suggesting their role in tumor aggressiveness and progression. We identifi d the frequent TP53 and BRAF mutations, with BRAF V600E being the most common, and observed a higher prevalence of BRAF mutations in females. TP53 mutations were prevalent (59.3%) and varied with age and sex, though their prognostic signifi ance requires further validation. A second key novel fi ding was the detection of FLT3 mutations in 22.2% of the samples, with a signifi antly higher prevalence in stage IV disease, suggesting a potential role of FLT3 in melanoma progression and warranting further investigation as a prognostic biomarker and a potential target for the existing FLT3 inhibitors. Ultimately, our pilot analysis of pharmacogenomic markers un- derscored their potential clinical utility in choosing personalized treatment decisions. for instance, the identifi ation of a patient with the rs35599367 (G/A) risk allele for adverse drug reactions underscores the value of using pharmacogenetic data to make a correct selection between approved therapies. Conclusions. Our study presents the fi st comprehensive analysis of somatic mutations and pharmacogenomic markers in unresectable cutaneous melanoma tissue samples from Ukrainian patients. We found that while common somatic variants generally align with global trends, the mutational landscape in this cohort presents several unique features: a high KRAS mutation rate and its apparent stage-specifi prevalence, and a high FLT3 mutation rate, predominantly in stage IV tumors. further validation on a larger number of samples, as well as more exhaustive analysis employ- ing alternative methods, is necessary to substantiate these fi dings and to facilitate more effective melanoma treatment.
References
Lopes J, Rodrigues CMP, Gaspar MM, et al. Melanoma management: from epidemiology to treatment and latest advances. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(19):4652. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14194652
fedorenko ZP, Goulak LO, Gorokh yeL, et al. Cancer in Ukraine 20220-2023: incidence, mortality, prevalence and other relevant statistics. Bull Nat Cancer Reg Ukraine 2024;25. Available at http://www.ncru.inf.ua/publications/ BULL_23/index_e.htm
ISSN 1812-9269. Experimental Oncology 47 (3). 2025 299
druskovich C, Kelley J, Aubrey J, et al. A review of melanoma subtypes: genetic and treatment considerations. J Surg Oncol. 2025;131(3):356-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27953
Castellani G, Buccarelli M, Arasi MB, et al. BRAf mutations in melanoma: biological aspects, therapeutic impli- cations, and circulating biomarkers. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(16):4026. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164026
florent L, Saby C, Slimano f,et al. BRAf V600-mutated metastatic melanoma and targeted therapy resistance: an update of the current knowledge. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(9):2607. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15092607
Membrive Jiménez C, Pérez Ramírez C, Sánchez Martín A, et al. Clinical application of pharmacogenetic markers in the treatment of dermatologic pathologies. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14(9):905. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14090905
Truesdell P, Chang J, Coto Villa d, et al. Pharmacogenomic discovery of genetically targeted cancer therapies op- timized against clinical outcomes. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2024;8(1):186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-024-00673-z
Cui X, Song J, Li Q, Ren J. Identification of biomarkers and target drugs for melanoma: a topological and deep learning approach. Front Genet. 2025;16:1471037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2025.1471037
Gerashchenko G, Gulkovskyi R, Melnichuk N, et al. Identification of clinically relevant gene variants in colon adenocarcinoma samples of Ukrainian patients using a comprehensive cancer panel: a pilot study. Exp Oncol. 2024;46(3):221-227. https://doi.org/10.15407/exp-oncology.2024.03.221
Amendola LM, Jarvik GP, Leo MC, et al. Performance of ACMG-AMP variant-interpretation guidelines among nine laboratories in the clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98(6):1067- 1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.03.024
Nykamp K, Anderson M, Powers M, et al. Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG-AMP variant clas- sification criteria. Genet Med. 2017;19(10):1105-1117. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.37
Mandelker d, donoghue M, Talukdar S, et al. Germline-focussed analysis of tumour-only sequencing: recom- mendations from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(8):1221-1231. https://doi. org/10.1093/annonc/mdz136
Whirl-Carrillo M, huddart R, Gong L, et al. An evidence-based framework for evaluating pharmacogenomics knowledge for personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110(3):563-572. https://doi.org10.1002/cpt.2350
Lewis BC, Korprasertthaworn P, Miners JO. Impaired dacarbazine activation and 7-ethoxyresorufin deethylation in vitro by polymorphic variants of CyP1A1 and CyP1A2: implications for cancer therapy. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2016;26(10):453-61. https://doi.org10.1097/fPC.0000000000000236
Goey AK, With M, Agema BC, et al. Effects of pharmacogenetic variants on vemurafenib-related toxicities in pa- tients with melanoma. Pharmacogenomics. 2019;20(18):1283-1290. https://doi.org10.2217/pgs-2019-0101
Casula M, Paliogiannis P, Ayala f, et al. Germline and somatic mutations in patients with multiple primary melano- mas: a next generation sequencing study. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):772. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5984-7
Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Genomic classification of cutaneous melanoma. Cell. 2015;161(7):1681-1696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.044
Jia dd, Li T. Comprehensive insights on genetic alterations and immunotherapy prognosis in Chinese melanoma patients. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):16607. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65065-6
Reddy By, Miller dM, Tsao h. Somatic driver mutations in melanoma. Cancer. 2017;123(S11):2104-2117. https:// doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30593
Cai y, Ke L, Zhang W, et al. Recurrent KRAS, KIT and Sf3B1 mutations in melanoma of the female genital tract.
BMC Cancer. 2021;21:677. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08427-x
Cook J, Melloni G, Gulhan d, et al. The origins and genetic interactions of KRAS mutations are allele- and tissue- specific. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1808. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22125-z
Tímár J, Kashofer K. Molecular epidemiology and diagnostics of KRAS mutations in human cancer. Cancer Metas- tasis Rev. 2020;39:1029-1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-020-09915-5
Zhou y, Kuang y, Wang C, et al. Impact of KRAS mutation on the tumor microenvironment in colorectal cancer.
Int J Biol Sci. 2024;20:1947-1964. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.88779
Thierauf J, Kaluziak S, Codd E, et al. Prognostic biomarkers for survival in mucosal melanoma. Pigment Cell Mela- noma Res. 2023;36:378-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcmr.13104
Rabbie R, ferguson P, Wong K, et al. The mutational landscape of melanoma brain metastases presenting as the first visceral site of recurrence. Br J Cancer. 2020;124:156-160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-01090-2
Zhang W, flemington E, Zhang K. Mutant TP53 disrupts age-related accumulation patterns of somatic mutations in multiple cancer types. Cancer Genet. 2016;209(9):376-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergen.2016.07.001
Kim d, haydu L, Joon A, et al. Clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes associated with TP53 and BRAFnon-V600
mutations in cutaneous melanoma patients. Cancer. 2017;123(8):1372–1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30463
Cardano M, Buscemi G, Zannini L. Sex disparities in P53 regulation and functions: novel insights for personalized cancer therapies. Cells. 2025;14(5):363. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14050363
Meevassana J, Mittrakulkij C, Toworrakul P, et al. Evaluation of P53 immunostaining in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Biomed Rep. 2023; 20(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2023.1696
Xiao W, du N, huang T, et al. TP53 mutation as potential negative predictor for response of anti-CTLA-4 therapy in metastatic melanoma. EBioMedicine. 2018;32:119-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.05.019
ISSN 1812-9269. Experimental Oncology 47 (3). 2025
Castellani G, Buccarelli M, Arasi M, et al. BRAf mutations in melanoma: biological aspects, therapeutic implica- tions, and circulating biomarkers. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(16):4026. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164026
Kim S, Kim S, hahn h, et al. Meta-analysis of BRAf mutations and clinicopathologic characteristics in primary melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(6):1036-1046.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1113
Shee K, Chambers M, hughes E, et al. Molecular genetic profiling reveals novel association between fLT3 mutation and survival in glioma. J Neurooncol. 2020;148:473-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-020-03567-9
Zhang R, Bozic I. Accumulation of oncogenic mutations during progression from healthy tissue to cancer. Bull Math Biol. 2024;86(12):142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-024-01372-3
Li G, Zhang J, Liu y, et al. Analyzing prognostic hub genes in the microenvironment of cutaneous melanoma by com- puter integrated bioinformatics. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022:4493347. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4493347
Chen R, Wang X, fu J, et al. high fLT3 expression indicates favorable prognosis and correlates with clinicopatho- logical parameters and immune infiltration in breast cancer. Front Genet. 2022;13:956869. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fgene.2022.956869
Pflugfelder A, Eigentler T, Keim U, et al. Effectiveness of carboplatin and paclitaxel as fi st- and second-line treatment in 61 patients with metastatic melanoma. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e16882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016882
Lee C, Jung M, Choi h, et al. Results of a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of docetaxel and carboplatin in metastatic malignant melanoma patients who failed first-line therapy containing dacarbazine. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47:781-789. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.261
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Experimental Oncology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
