Table 1.
Studies evaluating the mutation status of BRAF and NRAS in congenital melanocytic nevi.
| Study | Size of CMN analyzed* |
BRAF mutations |
NRAS mutations |
Median age (years) at biopsy/excision |
Documented presence at birth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Carr and Mackie, 1994) | Small | -- | 12/43(27.9%) | 28 | Yes |
| (Papp et al., 1999)† | Small | -- | 1/2(50%) | -- | |
| Medium | -- | 9/16(56.2%) | 12 | -- | |
| (Pollock et al., 2003) | -- | 6/7(85.7%) | 2/7(28.6%) | -- | -- |
| (Yazdi et al., 2003) | -- | 6/13(46.2%) | -- | -- | -- |
| (Papp et al., 2005)† | Small | 1/2(50%) | -- | -- | |
| Medium | 6/16(37.5%) | -- | 12 | -- | |
| (De Raeve et al., 2006) | Giant | 0/9 | -- | <1 | Yes |
| (Ichii-Nakato et al., 2006) | Small | 37/42(88.1%) | -- | 26 (mean) | Yes |
| Medium | 6/20(30%) | 9/20(45%) | 19 (mean) | Yes | |
| (Bauer et al., 2007) | Small# | 20/28(71.4%) | 7/28(25%) | 40 | -- |
| Medium/Large | 0/32 | 26/32(81.2%) | 1.33 | Yes | |
| (J. Wu et al., 2007) | Small# | 20/25(80%) | -- | -- | -- |
| Large | 6/9(66.7%) | -- | -- | Yes | |
| (Dessars et al., 2009) | Medium | 1/3(33.3%) | 1/3 (33.3%) | -- | -- |
| Large | 3/24(12.5%)▪ | 18/24(75%) | -- | -- | |
| (Phadke et al., 2011) | Small/Medium | 7/16(43.8%) | 1/16(6.2%) | 4 | -- |
| Giant | 2/27(7.4%) | 12/27(44.4%) | -- | ||
| (Qi et al., 2011) | -- | 61/104(58.7%) | 2/104(1.9%) | -- | Yes |
| (D. Wu et al., 2011) | Medium | 9/37(24.3%) | 10/37(27%) | 10 (mean) | Yes |
| Giant | 0/18 | 3/18 (16.7%) | 7.9 (mean) | Yes | |
| (Kinsler et al., 2013) | Medium/Large/Giant | -- | 10/13(76.9%) | 8.3 | -- |
| (Charbel et al., 2014) | Small/Medium | 6/20(30%) | 14/20(70%) | 4.17 | Yes |
| Large/Giant | 1/19(5.3%) | 18/19(94.7%) | 0.66 | Yes |
*
Studies used different classification schemes to define medium, large, and giant CMN
†
Same CMN samples used in both studies by Papp et al.
#
“congenital pattern nevi”
▪
Two BRAF wild-type CMN showed chromosomal translocations affecting BRAF loci, with suspected oncogene activation.