
==== Front
Cancer Med
Cancer Med
10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7634
CAM4
Cancer Medicine
2045-7634
John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken

10.1002/cam4.70199
CAM470199
CAM4-2024-02-0866.R1
Research Article
Research Article
Gender and melanoma subtype‐based prognostic implications of MUC16 and TTN co‐occurrent mutations in melanoma: A retrospective multi‐study analysis
Kodali et al.
Kodali Nilesh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2092-9469
1 nilesh.kodali@gmail.com

Alomary Simona 1
Bhattaru Abhijit 1
Eldaboush Ahmed 2
Schwartz Robert A. 1
Lipner Shari R. 3
1 Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Newark New Jersey USA
2 Department of Dermatology Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
3 Department of Dermatology Weill Cornell Medicine New York New York USA
* Correspondence
Nilesh Kodali, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103, USA.
Email: nilesh.kodali@gmail.com

06 9 2024
9 2024
13 17 10.1002/cam4.v13.17 e7019922 8 2024
09 2 2024
26 8 2024
© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Most primary cutaneous melanomas have pathogenesis driven by ultraviolet exposure and genetic mutations, whereas acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) and metastatic melanoma are much less, if at all, linked with the former. Thus, we evaluated both ultraviolet related and non‐ultraviolet related melanomas. Mutations in the MUC16 and TTN genes commonly occur concurrently in these melanoma patients, but their combined prognostic significance stratified by gender and cancer subtype remains unclear.

Methods

The cBioPortal database was queried for melanoma studies and returned 16 independent studies. Data from 2447 melanoma patients were utilized including those with ALM, cutaneous melanoma (CM), and melanoma of unknown primary (MUP). Patients were grouped based on the presence or absence of MUC16 and TTN mutations. Univariate Cox regression and Student's t‐tests were used to analyze hazard ratios and total mutation count comparisons, respectively.

Results

TTN mutations, either alone or concurrently with MUC16 mutations, significantly correlated with worse prognosis overall, in both genders, and in CM patients. ALM patients with both mutations had better prognoses than CM patients, while ALM patients with neither mutation had worse prognosis than CM patients. For MUP patients, only MUC16 mutations correlated with worse prognosis. ALM patients with neither MUC16 nor TTN mutations had significantly more total mutations than MUP patients, followed by CM patients.

Conclusion

TTN mutations are a potential marker of poor prognosis in melanoma, which is amplified in the presence of concurrent MUC16 mutations. ALM patients with neither gene mutations had worse prognosis, suggesting a protective effect of having both MUC16 and TTN mutations. Only MUC16 mutations conferred a worse prognosis for MUP patients. Comprehensive genetic profiling in melanoma patients may facilitate personalized treatment strategies to optimize patient outcomes.

demographics
melanoma
MUC16
survival outcomes
TTN
source-schema-version-number2.0
cover-dateSeptember 2024
details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.8 mode:remove_FC converted:06.09.2024
Kodali N , Alomary S , Bhattaru A , Eldaboush A , Schwartz RA , Lipner SR . Gender and melanoma subtype‐based prognostic implications of MUC16 and TTN co‐occurrent mutations in melanoma: A retrospective multi‐study analysis. Cancer Med. 2024;13 :e70199. doi:10.1002/cam4.70199
==== Body
pmc1 INTRODUCTION

Melanoma, a malignant tumor resulting from the transformation of melanocytes, has the highest mortality compared to other relatively common primary skin cancers, with 2.1 deaths per 100,000 Americans per year. Their pathogenesis, although multi‐faceted, is largely attributed to significant ultraviolet (UV) exposure for most primary cutaneous melanomas with the except of acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM); almost all melanomas are seemingly linked with an accumulation of mutated genetic drivers. 1 Commonly mutated genes include BRAF, NRAS, NF1, CDKN2A, MUC16, and TTN. 2 , 3

While some genes manifest mutations that are mutually exclusive, gene mutations in MUC16 and TTN may co‐occur in a substantial proportion of patients. 4 The clinical implications of these co‐occurrent mutations on patient prognosis are not well understood. Furthermore, gender and specific melanoma subtype may also impact prognosis. Stratification of gender and cancer subtype is critical to develop a better understanding of patient outcomes based on their genetic and demographic profiles. Therefore, we investigated the impact the two most commonly co‐occurrent genetic mutations, MUC16 and TTN, on patient prognosis and the impact of gender and melanoma subtype on patient mortality risk.

2 METHODS

We queried the cBioPortal database for melanoma studies, utilizing mutational and patient profile data from 16 studies. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 The cBioPortal database is an open‐access resource that contains multiple cancer genomic data sets inputted from prior cancer studies. Patients were included if they had ALM, cutaneous melanoma (CM), or melanoma of an unknown primary origin (MUP). MUP is defined as having histologically confirmed melanoma metastasis without evidence of a melanoma of primary origin. We analyzed extrapolated data for mutation count, mutated gene, gender, melanoma subtype, survival status, and overall survival (in months). Patients were grouped into four gene groups: patients with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations, patients with MUC16 mutations but no TTN mutations, patients with TTN mutations but no MUC16 mutations, and patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations.

Mutation frequency distribution analysis and co‐occurrence analysis were conducted to rank the most frequent mutations and the most prevalent co‐occurrent mutations. Univariate cox regression hazard ratio analysis was used to compare risk of mortality based on melanoma mutation type, gender, and melanoma type both within and across gene groups. Student's t‐tests were used to compare the mean number of mutations between genders based on mutation type. Analysis of variance tests were used to compare the number of mutations across melanoma types based on melanoma mutation type. An ɑ = 0.05 was used for all analyses. Statistics were conducted in R (version 4.3, R Core Team 2023).

3 RESULTS

A total of 2447 melanoma patients and 2495 patient samples were included. Using mutation frequency distribution analysis, MUC16 (62.90%) and TTN (61.10%) mutations were the most frequent mutations in the cohort (Table S1). Using co‐occurrence analysis of the top 50 most frequently mutated genes, MUC16 and TTN were the most common co‐occurrent mutated genes occurring in 741 patient samples (OR >3; p < 0.001) (Table S2). Overall, 126 patients had MUC16 mutations alone, 204 patients had TTN mutations alone, 765 patients had both MUC16 and TTN mutations, and 1352 patients had neither MUC16 nor TTN mutations.

3.1 Overall survival

Overall survival was compared in a pairwise manner amongst the four gene groups and hazard ratios (HR) were utilized to analyze mortality risk. Compared to patients without MUC16 or TTN mutations, patients with TTN mutations alone (HR: 1.52; CI: 1.25–1.85; p < 0.001) or patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations (HR: 1.36; CI: 1.20–1.55; p < 0.001) had significantly worse prognosis. All other pairwise comparisons of overall survival were not significant (Table 1).

TABLE 1 Pairwise comparisons of overall survival across gene groups.

Gene A (reference)	Gene B	Hazard ratio	Standard error	95% confidence interval	p‐value	
Neither	MUC16	1.14	0.133	0.879–1.48	0.322	
Neither	TTN	1.52	0.100	1.25–1.85	<0.001	
Neither	Both	1.36	0.0654	1.20–1.55	<0.001	
MUC16	TTN	1.33	0.152	0.988–1.79	0.0597	
MUC16	Both	1.17	0.131	0.907–1.51	0.225	
TTN	Both	0.878	0.0957	0.728–1.06	0.175	
Note: “Neither” refers to patients without either a MUC16 or TTN mutation. “Both” refers to patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations.

Bold values are the statistically significant p ‐values < 0.05.

3.2 Gender, cancer type, and gene group interactions in overall survival

Overall survival was stratified by gender and different melanoma cancer subtypes both within and across different gene groups. In patients with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations, ALM patients (HR: 1.92; CI: 1.05–3.52; p = 0.0352) or MUP patients (HR: 2.25; CI: 1.82–2.77; p < 0.001) had worse prognosis than CM patients. ALM patients harboring both MUC16 and TTN mutations had better prognosis (HR: 0.268; CI: 0.111–0.648; p = 0.00347) than CM patients who also had both mutations. MUP patients with only MUC16 mutations and no TTN mutations had poorer prognosis (HR: 4.18; CI: 2.30–7.60; p < 0.001) than CM patients with only MUC16 mutations (Table 2). All other overall survival comparisons within the four gene groups were not significant.

TABLE 2 Gender and cancer subtype‐specific overall survival within Gene Groups.

Gene group	Hazard ratio	Standard error	95% confidence interval	p‐value	
Neither	
Gender	
Female	Reference				
Male	1.6	0.109	0.938–1.44	0.172	
Cancer type	
Cutaneous melanoma	Reference				
Acral lentiginous melanoma	1.92	0.310	1.05–3.52	0.0352	
Melanoma of unknown primary	2.25	0.107	1.82–2.77	<0.001	
Both	
Gender	
Female	Reference				
Male	1.16	0.0919	0.966–1.38	0.113	
Cancer type	
Cutaneous melanoma	Reference				
Acral lentiginous melanoma	0.268	0.450	0.111–0.648	0.00347	
Melanoma of unknown Primary	0.901	0.0974	0.744–1.09	0.283	
MUC16	
Gender	
Female	Reference				
Male	1.27	0.262	0.760–2.12	0.362	
Cancer type	
Cutaneous melanoma	Reference				
Acral lentiginous melanoma	2.01	0.394	0.929–4.36	0.0761	
Melanoma of unknown primary	4.18	0.305	2.30–7.60	<0.001	
TTN	
Gender	
Female	Reference				
Male	0.985	0.179	0.694–1.40	0.934	
Cancer type	
Cutaneous melanoma	Reference				
Acral lentiginous melanoma	1.28	0.511	0.470–3.48	0.629	
Melanoma of unknown primary	1.62	0.247	0.999–2.63	0.0506	
Note: “Neither” refers to patients without either a MUC16 or TTN mutation. “Both” refers to patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations.

Bold values are the statistically significant p ‐values < 0.05.

Female patients with TTN mutations alone (HR: 1.66; CI: 1.20–2.30; p = 0.00215) or both TTN and MUC16 mutations (HR: 1.30; CI: 1.03–1.64; p = 0.0295) had worse prognosis than female patients without MUC16 or TTN mutations. Male patients with only TTN mutations (HR: 1.46; CI: 1.13–1.87; p = 0.00314) or both MUC16 and TTN mutations (HR: 1.35; CI: 1.16–1.58; p < 0.001) had poorer overall survival than males without MUC16 or TTN mutations (Table 3).

TABLE 3 Gender and cancer subtype‐specific overall survival across gene groups.

Gene group	Hazard ratio	Standard error	95% confidence interval	p‐value	
Gender	
Female	
Neither	Reference				
Both	1.30	0.120	1.03–1.64	0.0295	
MUC16	1.14	0.205	0.764–1.71	0.517	
TTN	1.66	0.165	1.20–2.30	0.00215	
Male	
Neither	Reference				
Both	1.35	0.0783	1.16–1.58	<0.001	
MUC16	1.37	0.174	0.977–1.93	0.0681	
TTN	1.46	0.127	1.13–1.87	0.00314	
Cancer type	
Cutaneous melanoma	
Neither	Reference				
Both	1.83	0.0816	1.56–2.14	<0.001	
MUC16	0.998	0.174	0.710–1.40	0.989	
TTN	1.84	0.117	1.46–2.31	<0.001	
Acral lentiginous melanoma	
Neither	Reference				
Both	0.233	0.559	0.0779–0.697	0.0092	
MUC16	1.03	0.474	0.408–2.61	0.946	
TTN	1.44	0.592	0.451–4.60	0.537	
Melanoma of unknown primary	
Neither	Reference				
Both	0.821	0.122	0.647–1.04	0.104	
MUC16	2.16	0.242	1.35–3.48	0.00143	
TTN	1.28	0.232	0.810–2.01	0.293	
Note: “Neither” refers to patients without either a MUC16 or TTN mutation. “Both” refers to patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations.

Bold values are the statistically significant p ‐values < 0.05.

Compared to CM patients without MUC16 or TTN mutations, CM patients with either TTN mutations alone (HR: 1.84; CI: 1.46–2.31; p < 0.001) or both MUC16 and TTN mutations (HR: 1.83; CI: 1.56–2.14; p < 0.001) had worse prognosis. ALM patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations had better prognosis (HR: 0.233; CI: 0.0779–0.697; p = 0.0092) than ALM patients with neither MUC16 nor TTN mutations. MUP patients with MUC16 mutations alone had increased mortality risk (HR: 2.16; CI: 1.35–3.48; p = 0.00143) compared to MUP patients with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations. All other pairwise comparisons of overall survival across gene groups were not significant.

3.3 Total mutation count

In patients with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations (41 ± 51 vs. 34 ± 40; p = 0.03458), patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations (2884 ± 4152 vs. 1599 ± 1738; p < 0.001), patients with TTN mutations alone (382 ± 226 vs. 197 ± 138; p < 0.001), and the total cohort (1696 ± 3418 vs. 803 ± 1410; p < 0.001), males had greater numbers of total mutations than females. Within the total cohort, MUP patients had the greatest numbers of total mutations, followed by CM patients, and then ALM patients (1634 ± 2493 vs. 1343 ± 3156 vs. 860 ± 1092; p = 0.0196). Amongst those with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations, ALM patients had the greatest number of total mutations, followed by MUP patients and then CM patients (61 ± 45 vs. 47 ± 54 vs. 34 ± 44; p < 0.001) (Table 4). All other comparisons of total mutation counts across gender, cancer types, and gene groups were not significant.

TABLE 4 Total mutation count across gender, cancer subtype, and gene group.

Gene Group	Gender	Cancer type	
Male	Female	p‐value	CM	ALM	MUP	p‐value	
M	SD	M	SD		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	
Total Cohort	1696	3418	803	1410	<0.001	1343	3156	860	1092	1634	2493	0.0196	
Neither	41	51	34	40	0.03458	34	44	61	45	47	54	<0.001	
Both	2884	4152	1599	1738	<0.001	2477	4061	1957	951	2668	2789	0.467	
MUC16	239	114	239	183	0.9887	235	132	252	163	250	190	0.845	
TTN	382	226	197	138	<0.001	314	216	151	169	314	218	0.143	
Note: “Neither” refers to patients without either a MUC16 or TTN mutation. “Both” refers to patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations.

Abbreviations: ALM, acral lentiginous melanoma; CM, cutaneous melanoma; M, mean; MUP, melanoma of unknown primary; SD, standard deviation.

Bold values are the statistically significant p ‐values < 0.05.

4 DISCUSSION

TTN and MUC16 mutations were the most frequently mutated genes within this melanoma patient cohort and were the most common combination of concurrently mutated genes overall. These genes may be more prone to mutations because of their length. The TTN gene has one of the longest exon genomes (chromosome 2q31, 364 exons), and also has the greatest number of mutation sites. 21 The MUC16 gene has the second longest exon in the genome (chromosome 19p13, 84 exons), and is associated with increased tumor mutational burden. 22

We found that melanoma patients with TTN mutations alone and melanoma patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations had worse prognosis than patients with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations. However, patients with MUC16 mutations alone had a similar prognosis to those with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations. Therefore, our findings suggest that, although MUC16 and TTN mutations often occur concurrently, TTN mutations may be the primary driver of poor prognosis in melanoma patients. We found that TTN mutations conferred a poorer prognosis amongst both males and females and in CM patients than patients with neither MUC16 or TTN mutations. Notably, TTN encodes the protein titin, which interacts with 170 different protein ligands, including telethonin, actinin, sAnk1, filamin C, nebulin, tropomyosin, B‐crystallin, FHL1, FHL2, calpains 1 and 3, and muscle ankyrin repeat proteins (MARPs), 23 influencing key cellular processes, including phosphorylation, calcium binding, and myosin binding, and potentially contributing to tumorigenesis. Titin also plays a crucial role in myofibrillar signal transduction pathways 24 by coordinating and integrating gene activation, protein folding, quality control, and degradation, 23 which might foster tumor growth through uncontrolled cell proliferation and reduced apoptosis.

We found that patients with both MUC16 and TTN mutations had higher mortality risk than patients with neither mutation, and that patients with TTN mutations alone had an even higher mortality risk than patients with neither mutation, which differs from previous cancer literature. In a retrospective study analyzing somatic mutations in 480 patients with lung squamous cell carcinomas, patients with TTN mutations had a better prognosis than patients without TTN mutations. 21 In a separate retrospective study analyzing the same 480 patient cohort, patients with TTN mutations had better response to immune checkpoint blockade immunotherapy than patients without TTN mutations. 25 These disparities in the prognostic impact of TTN could be attributed to different tumorigenic pathways being active in different tumor types.

Our findings indicate a complex interplay between MUC16 and TTN mutations and their impact on prognosis in ALM and CM patients. We found that ALM patients without MUC16 and TTN mutations had worse prognosis compared to CM patients without these mutations. However, when both mutations were present, ALM patients had a more favorable prognosis than either CM patients with both mutations or ALM patients with neither mutation. Taken together, since presence of both MUC16 and TTN mutations, particularly in ALM patients, is associated with improved overall survival, these two mutations could have an additive protective effect in ALM patients. Our findings align with a retrospective prognostic analysis of 437 samples from patients with gastric cancer, showing that presence of MUC16 mutations were associated with better prognosis when compared to patients without MUC16 mutations. 22 Similarly, in another retrospective genomic analysis of 37 different solid tumors from 7 public clinical cohorts, the presence of TTN mutations were associated with better response to immune checkpoint blockade therapies compared to patients without TTN mutations. 25

The observed improved survival of ALM patients with concurrent MUC16 and TTN mutations might be attributed to the trend towards lower total mutation count in ALM patients with both mutations (in comparison to CM and MUP patients with both mutations), and the significantly higher total mutation count in ALM patients with neither mutations (in comparison to CM and MUP patients with neither mutations). Similarly, in a retrospective analysis of 262 gastric cancer patients, higher total mutation count (tumor mutational burden [TMB] ≥ 8) was associated with poorer prognosis. 26 In addition, in a retrospective database analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients, increased tumor mutational burden (top 20% TMB in patient cohort) was associated with worse survival rates. 27

In TTN‐mutated patients, MUC16‐mutated patients, and patients with neither MUC16 nor TTN mutations, MUP patients consistently had worse prognosis than CM patients. Similarly, in a prospective institutional study of 2930 melanoma patients, MUP patients treated with systemic therapies had poorer outcomes than patients with melanomas of known primaries (including CM or ALM) treated with systemic therapies. 28 For MUP patients in our study, only MUC16 mutations correlated with overall lower survival compared to MUP patients with neither mutation. Therefore, theoretically, genetic or immunologic targeting therapy towards MUC16 genes or MUC16‐associated proteins might improve overall patient outcomes for MUP patients.

Our data shows that while, on average, male melanoma patients had greater numbers of total mutations than female melanoma patients across different gene groups, there were no prognostic differences based on gender. These findings are in contrast to prior studies. For example, in a genome‐wide review of gender based differences in cancer prognosis, including melanoma, as well as lung adenocarcinoma, melanoma, urothelial cell, papillary renal cell, and hepatocellular carcinoma, males compared to females had higher mutation burden, which conferred worse overall prognosis. 29 In this same study, female melanoma patients with high mutation counts (greater than 130 mutations) still had greater overall survival compared to males with high or low mutation counts. 29 While we did not find gender‐based differences in survival based on mutation count, there may be gender‐specific differences in other mutually‐exclusive genetic mutations (i.e., TP53), which were not measured in our study. For example, in a retrospective genomic analysis using The Cancer Genome Atlas Program database, male melanoma patients harbored more TP53 gene mutations than female melanoma patients (TP53 mutation frequency per 100,000 people for males vs. females: 4.7 vs. 2.2; p ≈ 0), which was associated with poorer prognosis. 30 In a prospective study of 3324 melanoma patients, male patients had higher prevalence of tumor ulceration (63.8% vs. 36.2%; p < 0.0001) and metastasis to the axial skeleton (69.3% vs. 30.7%; p < 0.0001) than female patients, both being independent predictors of poorer outcomes in these patients. 31

Limitations include retrospective design, lack of data pertaining to treatment history, lifestyle and environmental factors, Breslow depth, race, ethnicity, socio‐economic factors, family history, and epigenetic background. Not all gene mutations involved in melanoma development were included in the database. Furthermore, the database may have inherent patient selection biases due to the limited set of studies included, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings. The representation of specific institutions or geographic regions could also affect the applicability of the results to a broader population. Additionally, there is a lack of literature on how different treatment modalities might influence patient outcomes specifically for those with MUC16 and TTN mutations, which we recommend as an important area for future research.

5 CONCLUSION

Our study showed that MUC16 and TTN were the most common co‐occurrent mutations in this cohort of melanoma patients. TTN mutations were a consistent marker of poor prognosis, either alone or combined with MUC16 mutations in the overall patient cohort, CM patients, and for both genders. For ALM patients, having both MUC16 and TTN mutations had a better prognosis, while having neither mutation conferred a worse prognosis. MUP patients consistently exhibited a worse prognosis than CM patients across MUC16‐mutated patients, TTN‐mutated patients, and patients with neither mutation. Only the presence of MUC16 mutations in MUP patients was associated with a worse outcome. There were no significant gender‐based differences in mortality risk across all gene combinations. Our study underscores the need for adequate genetic profiling in melanoma patients. Personalized therapeutic strategies might provide more effective treatment solutions, enhancing survival rates and improving overall melanoma patient care.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Nilesh Kodali: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); formal analysis (equal); investigation (lead); methodology (lead); project administration (lead); resources (equal); software (equal); supervision (lead); validation (lead); visualization (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (equal). Simona Alomary: Methodology (equal); resources (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Abhijit Bhattaru: Formal analysis (lead); methodology (lead); project administration (equal); validation (lead); visualization (lead); writing – review and editing (equal). Ahmed Eldaboush: Investigation (equal); validation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Robert A. Schwartz: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (equal); supervision (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Shari R. Lipner: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (equal); supervision (lead); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).

FUNDING INFORMATION

The authors report no funding sources relevant to this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Mr. Kodali, Ms. Alomary, and Mr. Bhattaru, Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Lipner have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho‐Dermatologics, Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals and BelleTorus Corporation.

Supporting information

Data S1.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The results shown here are also in part based upon data generated by the TCGA Research Network: https://www.cancer.gov/tcga.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Rastrelli M , Tropea S , Rossi CR , Alaibac M . Melanoma: epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, diagnosis and classification. In Vivo. 2014 Nov‐Dec;28 (6 ):1005‐1011.25398793
2 Davis EJ , Johnson DB , Sosman JA , Chandra S . Melanoma: What do all the mutations mean? Cancer. 2018;124 (17 ):3490‐3499. doi:10.1002/cncr.31345 29663336
3 Kodali N , Blanchard I , Kunamneni S , Lebwohl MG . Current management of generalized pustular psoriasis. Exp Dermatol. 2023;32 (8 ):1204‐1218. doi:10.1111/exd.14765 36779681
4 Jiang L , Yu H , Ness S , et al. Comprehensive analysis of co‐mutations identifies cooperating mechanisms of tumorigenesis. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14 (2 ):415. doi:10.3390/cancers14020415 35053577
5 Van Allen EM , Miao D , Schilling B , et al. Genomic correlates of response to CTLA‐4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science. 2015;350 (6257 ):207‐211. doi:10.1126/science.aad0095 26359337
6 Snyder A , Makarov V , Merghoub T , et al. Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA‐4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371 (23 ):2189‐2199. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1406498 25409260
7 Johansson P , Aoude LG , Wadt K , et al. Deep sequencing of uveal melanoma identifies a recurrent mutation in PLCB4. Oncotarget. 2016;7 (4 ):4624‐4631. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.6614 26683228
8 Liang WS , Hendricks W , Kiefer J , et al. Integrated genomic analyses reveal frequent TERT aberrations in acral melanoma. Genome Res. 2017;27 (4 ):524‐532. doi:10.1101/gr.213348.116 28373299
9 Liu D , Schilling B , Liu D , et al. Integrative molecular and clinical modeling of clinical outcomes to PD1 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma. Nat Med. 2019;25 (12 ):1916‐1927. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0654-5 31792460
10 Berger MF , Hodis E , Heffernan TP , et al. Melanoma genome sequencing reveals frequent PREX2 mutations. Nature. 2012;485 (7399 ):502‐506. doi:10.1038/nature11071 22622578
11 Shoushtari AN , Chatila WK , Arora A , et al. Therapeutic implications of detecting MAPK‐activating alterations in cutaneous and unknown primary melanomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27 (8 ):2226‐2235. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4189 33509808
12 Cancer Genome Atlas Network . Genomic classification of cutaneous melanoma. Cell. 2015;161 (7 ):1681‐1696. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.044 26091043
13 Catalanotti F , Cheng DT , Shoushtari AN , et al. PTEN loss‐of‐function alterations are associated with intrinsic resistance to BRAF inhibitors in metastatic melanoma. JCO precis. Oncologia. 2017;23 (1 ):1‐15. doi:10.1200/PO.16.00054
14 Hodis E , Watson IR , Kryukov GV , et al. A landscape of driver mutations in melanoma. Cell. 2012;150 (2 ):251‐263. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.024 22817889
15 Krauthammer M , Kong Y , Ha BH , et al. Exome sequencing identifies recurrent somatic RAC1 mutations in melanoma. Nat Genet. 2012;44 (9 ):1006‐1014. doi:10.1038/ng.2359 22842228
16 Van Allen EM , Wagle N , Sucker A , et al. The genetic landscape of clinical resistance to RAF inhibition in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Discov. 2014;4 (1 ):94‐109. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0617 24265153
17 Shain AH , Garrido M , Botton T , et al. Exome sequencing of desmoplastic melanoma identifies recurrent NFKBIE promoter mutations and diverse activating mutations in the MAPK pathway. Nat Genet. 2015;47 (10 ):1194‐1199. doi:10.1038/ng.3382 26343386
18 Hugo W , Zaretsky JM , Sun L , et al. Genomic and transcriptomic features of response to anti‐PD‐1 therapy in metastatic melanoma. Cell. 2016;165 (1 ):35‐44. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.065 26997480
19 Cerami E , Gao J , Dogrusoz U , et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2 (5 ):401‐404. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0095 22588877
20 Gao J , Aksoy BA , Dogrusoz U , et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6 (269 ):pl1. doi:10.1126/scisignal.2004088 23550210
21 Zou S , Ye J , Hu S , Wei Y , Xu J . Mutations in the TTN gene are a prognostic factor for patients with lung squamous cell carcinomas. Int J Gen Med. 2022;4 (15 ):19‐31. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S343259
22 Li X , Pasche B , Zhang W , Chen K . Association of MUC16 mutation with tumor mutation load and outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4 (12 ):1691‐1698. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2805 30098163
23 Savarese M , Sarparanta J , Vihola A , Udd B , Hackman P . Increasing role of Titin mutations in neuromuscular disorders. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2016;3 (3 ):293‐308. doi:10.3233/JND-160158 27854229
24 Labeit S , Kolmerer B , Linke WA . The giant protein titin. Emerging roles in physiology and pathophysiology. Circ Res. 1997;80 (2 ):290‐294. doi:10.1161/01.res.80.2.290 9012751
25 Jia Q , Wang J , He N , He J , Zhu B . Titin mutation associated with responsiveness to checkpoint blockades in solid tumors. JCI Insight. 2019;4 (10 ):e127901. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.127901 31092729
26 He X , Yu M , Wang X , Chen J , Li X . Analysis of threshold change of tumor mutation burden in gastric cancer. J Oncol. 2021;22 (2021 ):3374939. doi:10.1155/2021/3374939
27 Xie F , Bai Y , Yang X , et al. Comprehensive analysis of tumour mutation burden and the immune microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma. Int Immunopharmacol. 2020;89 :107135. doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107135 33189609
28 Utter K , Goldman C , Weiss SA , et al. Treatment outcomes for metastatic melanoma of unknown primary in the new era: a single‐institution study and review of the literature. Oncology. 2017;93 (4 ):249‐258. doi:10.1159/000478050 28746931
29 Lopes‐Ramos CM , Quackenbush J , DeMeo DL . Genome‐wide sex and gender differences in cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;23 (10 ):597788. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.597788
30 Haupt S , Caramia F , Herschtal A , et al. Identification of cancer sex‐disparity in the functional integrity of p53 and its X chromosome network. Nat Commun. 2019;10 (1 ):5385. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13266-3 31772231
31 Scoggins CR , Ross MI , Reintgen DS , et al. Gender‐related differences in outcome for melanoma patients. Ann Surg. 2006;243 (5 ):693‐700. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000216771.81362.6b 16633005
