Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 8, 2025

Screening for Melanoma Modifiers using a Zebrafish Autochthonous Tumor Model
Published on: November 13, 2012
Correlation of FISH and PRAME Immunohistochemistry in Ambiguous Superficial Cutaneous Melanocytic Proliferations
Nathan T Harvey1,2, Joanne Peverall3, Nathan Acott1
1Department of Anatomical Pathology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Perth, Australia.
Abstract:
Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is a tumor-associated repressor of retinoic acid signaling which is expressed in melanoma and has emerged as a potential biomarker for malignant behavior in melanocytic neoplasms. Although ancillary molecular techniques such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are established techniques in the diagnosis of problematic cutaneous melanocytic proliferations, they are expensive, time-consuming, and require appropriate infrastructure, which places them out of reach of some laboratories. The advent of readily available commercial antibodies to PRAME has the potential to provide a more accessible alternative. The aim of this study was to determine whether immunohistochemistry for PRAME could serve as a surrogate for FISH analysis in a subgroup of challenging superficial melanocytic proliferations. Cases which had previously been submitted for FISH analysis were stained for PRAME and interpreted by a panel of at least 3 dermatopathologists is a blinded fashion. Of a study set of 55 cases, 42 (76%) showed a pattern of PRAME immunostaining which was concordant with the cytogenetic interpretation, with an unweighted kappa of 0.42 (representing mild-to-moderate agreement). Thus, although there was a correlation between positive immunohistochemistry for PRAME and abnormal findings on FISH analysis, in our view, the concordance was not sufficient to enable PRAME immunohistochemistry to act as a surrogate for FISH testing. Our findings reiterate the principle that interpretation of problematic superficial melanocytic proliferations requires a synthesis of all the available data, including clinical scenario, morphological features, immunohistochemistry, and ancillary molecular investigations.
Insights
Immunohistochemistry for PRAME is not a sufficient surrogate for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in diagnosing challenging melanocytic neoplasms. While PRAME showed mild-to-moderate agreement with FISH results, it cannot replace this molecular technique.
Area of Science:
- Dermatopathology
- Oncology
- Molecular Diagnostics
Background:
- Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is a tumor marker for melanocytic neoplasms.
- Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a valuable but resource-intensive diagnostic tool for melanocytic lesions.
- PRAME immunohistochemistry offers a potentially more accessible diagnostic alternative.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate if PRAME immunohistochemistry can substitute for FISH analysis in challenging superficial melanocytic proliferations.
- To assess the concordance between PRAME immunostaining and FISH results in a selected cohort of cases.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 55 melanocytic proliferation cases previously subjected to FISH.
- Blinded immunohistochemical staining for PRAME performed on these cases.
- Interpretation of PRAME staining by a panel of at least three dermatopathologists.
Main Results:
- PRAME immunostaining concordance with FISH cytogenetic interpretation was observed in 76% of cases (42/55).
- The unweighted kappa value indicated mild-to-moderate agreement (0.42) between PRAME IHC and FISH.
- A correlation exists, but concordance is insufficient for PRAME IHC to replace FISH.
Conclusions:
- PRAME immunohistochemistry is not a reliable surrogate for FISH testing in diagnosing problematic melanocytic proliferations.
- Accurate diagnosis requires integrating clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular data.
- Further validation is needed before PRAME IHC can be considered a standalone diagnostic tool for these challenging cases.

