Deficient mismatch repair is detected in large-to-giant congenital melanocytic naevi: providing new insight into aetiology and diagnosis

Abstract

Background: The aetiologies of large-to-giant congenital melanocytic naevi (LGCMN) remain ambiguous. A previous study discovered signatures associated with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) in patients with LGCMN. However, a screening diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) panel of dMMR in patients with LGCMN has not been performed to date.

Objectives: To identify the MMR status and aetiologies of LGCMN.

Methods: A total of 110 patients with CMN, including 30 giant CMN, 30 large CMN, 30 medium CMN and 20 small CMN, underwent diagnostic IHC (for MSH6, MSH2, PMS2 and MLH1) screening of dMMR. The control group comprised normal skin samples from 20 healthy people. MMR proteins with little effect (MSH3 and PMS1) on the MMR system were stained in all samples. The surgical procedures conducted on each patient were noted because they might alter the behaviour of CMN and confound the results. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed between the phenotypic data and MMR status to identify associations. Whole-exome sequencing was performed on the main naevi, satellite naevi and normal skin tissues of four patients to detect variants. Mutational signature analyses were conducted to explore the aetiologies of LGCMN.

Results: dMMR was detected in 37% (11 of 30) of giant, 23% (7 of 30) of large and 7% (2 of 30) of medium CMNs, but were not identified in small CMNs or normal skin tissues. Moreover, multiple LGCMNs had a much higher dMMR rate than did single LGCMNs. The regression analyses showed that MMR status was significantly associated with CMN size and the presence of satellites, but was not correlated with age, sex, location, satellite diversity or tissue expansion. Notably, the pattern of protein loss in LGCMN mainly consisted of PMS2 loss. Mutational signature analyses detected dMMR-related signatures in patients with LGCMN. Additionally, rare deleterious germline mutations in DNA repair genes were detected in LGCMN, mainly in MSH6, ATM, RAD50, BRCA1 and ERCC8. These germline mutations were single-patient variants with unknown significance.

Conclusions: dMMR is one of the aetiologies underlying LGCMN, particularly in patients with giant main lesions and multiple satellite lesions. Further studies are necessary to investigate the role of the DNA repair system, particularly MMR, in LGCMN.