Store
|
Contributing Editors
|
Help
|
Contact
|
Sign In
select
All
Images Only
Search
home
resources
images
handouts
videos
quizzes
boardreview
atoz
< Current issue
Dermatopathology: Practical & Conceptual January - March 2002
>
New Concept: Melanomas in Prepubescent Children: Review Comprehensively, Critique Historically, Criteria Diagnostically, and Course Biologically
Joan M. Mones, D.O.
A. Bernard Ackerman, M.D.
Abstract
Definition of “Prepubescent” and of Proven “Melanomas” for Purposes of This Treatise
Historical Perspective: Darier and A. Civatte, 1910
Historical Perspective: Coe, 1925; Pack and Anglem, 1939
Historical Perspective: Pack et al., 1947; L. Ackerman and del Regato, 1947
Historical Perspective: Pack, 1948; MacDonald, 1948
Historical Perspective: Spitz, 1948
Historical Perspective: Allen, 1949
Historical Perspective: Spitz, 1951; Pack and Scharnagel, 1951
Historical Perspective: Truax and Allen, 1953; Allen and Spitz, 1953
Historical Perspective: Becker, 1954; McWhorter and Woolner, 1954
Historical Perspective: McWhorter et al., 1954; Hendrix, 1954; Dobson, 1955
Historical Perspective: Allen, 1960
Historical Perspective: Hoagland and Hughes, 1960
Historical Perspective: Pontius and Dziabis, 1961; McGovern and Goulston, 1963
Historical Perspective: Giersten, 1964; Kopf and Andrade, 1966
Historical Perspective: Responses of Allen to Kopf and Andrade, 1966
Historical Perspective: Skov-Jensen et al., 1966; Zwaveling et al., 1966; Saksela and Rintala, 1968
Historical Perspective: Lerman et al., 1970
Historical Perspective: Trozak et al., 1975; Shanon et al., 1976
Historical Perspective: Helwig, 1975
Historical Perspective: Speculations of Helwig, 1975
Historical Perspective: Boddie, et al., 1978
Historical Perspective: Stomberg, 1979; Pratt et al., 1981
Historical Perspective: Flemming and Ruggins, 1985; Bader et al., 1985
Historical Perspective: Peters and Goellner, 1986
Historical Perspective: Moss and Briggs, 1986; Melnick et al., 1986; Chapman et al., 1987
Historical Perspective: Donner et al., 1988
Historical Perspective: Fisher et al., 1988
Historical Perspective: K. Smith et al., 1989: “Malignant Spitz’s Nevus”
Historical Perspective: Partoff et al., 1989; Roth et al., 1990
Historical Perspective: Allen, 1991
Historical Perspective: Temple et al., 1991
Historical Perspective: Crotty et al., 1992
Historical Perspective: A. H. Mehregan and D. A. Mehregan, 1993
Historical Perspective: Tate et al., 1993
Historical Perspective: Chun et al., 1993; Bartoli et al., 1994; Nitta et al., 1995
Historical Perspective: Barnhill et al., 1995
Historical Perspective: Barnhill et al., 1995: “Metastasizing Spitz’s Tumor”
Historical Perspective: Barnhill et al., 1995: “Atypical Spitz Tumor”
Historical Perspective: Lartigau et al., 1995
Historical Perspective: Whiteman et al., 1995; Handfield-Jones and N. Smith, 1996
Historical Perspective: Spatz et al., 1996; Naasan et al., 1996
Historical Perspective: Scalzo et al., 1997; Eady, 1997; Crotty, 1997; Zhu et al., 1997
Historical Perspective: Wu and Lambert, 1997; Milton et al., 1997
Historical Perspective: Spatz and Avril, 1998
Historical Perspective: Barnhill, 1998; Spatz and Barnhill, 1999
Historical Perspective: Barnhill et al., 1999
Historical Perspective: Rapini, 1999
Historical Perspective: Strojan and Lamovec, 2000; Davis, 2000; Neville et al., 2000
Historical Perspective: Kogut et al., 2000; Patterson et al., 2000; Zuckerman et al., 2001
Historical Perspective: Conti et al., 2001; Fabrizi and Massi, 2001
Summary: Major Sources of Error in Interpretation
Summary: Major Errors of Pack, Spitz, and Allen
Summary: Major errors of Helwig, K. Smith, and Barnhill
Our Experience
Clinical Appearance
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 18
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 19
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 20
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 21
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 22
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 23
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 24
)
Histopathologic Findings (
Figure 25
)
Differences Histopathologically Between Melanomas in Prepubescents and in Postpubescents: Scanning Magnification
Differences Histopathologically Between Melanomas in Prepubescents and Postpubescents: Higher Magnification
Histopathologic Differential Diagnosis
Biologic Behavior
Synthesis
Purpose of This Endeavor and the Essence of the Message
Conclusions
Addendum and Caveat
Postscript
Acknowledgements
References
SEE ALSO
-
melanoma
<
Previous
|
Next
>
Definition of "Prepubescent" and of Proven "Melanomas" for Purposes of This Treatise
Authentic primary cutaneous melanomas*, as proved by metastasis do arise
de novo
in children despite assertions to the contrary.
183
A review of prepubescent melanoma that deals only with patients who fulfilled our criteria for prepubescence, that is, a primary cutaneous
de novo
melanoma in a child 10 years of age or younger at the time of diagnosis, would not consist of even a single sentence, the reason being that, to the best of our knowledge, no series has ever been published of children 10 years of age or younger with proven primary cutaneous melanoma. In order to elucidate and, thereby, to instruct, we have analyzed all articles pertaining to melanoma that developed
de novo
in young persons, focusing especially on those that concern children and in which histopathologic findings were presented. Although for purposes of our study we elected to define "prepubescent" as 10 years of age or younger, we have incorporated in our review of the subject all articles that dealt with the matter in general of melanomas in young persons, irrespective of what age was chosen by authors as the upper limit for defining a child.
Our own series, however, includes only primary cutaneous melanomas that developed
de novo
in children who seemed to be prepubescent. None of those melanomas arose in association with a nevus of any kind, including a congenital one,
84114
in a fetus acquired
in utero
from a mother who herself had metastases of melanoma,
115119
in children with xeroderma pigmentosa,
120
in conjunction with other malignant neoplasms in children who were immunocompromised,
121
or in a zone of previous irradiation.
102
At the outset of an undertaking such as this, it is essential to define puberty. Lee, in 1980,
122
wrote about "Normal ages of pubertal events among American males and females" and offered this definition: "Puberty may begin from age 8.0 to 14.9 years for females and from age 9.7 to 14.1 years for males and is complete by age 12.4 to 16.8 years for females and by age 13.7 to 17.9 years for males." Based on this assessment, we made an arbitrary decision, for the purpose of this work, to regard "prepubertal" in both sexes as 10 years of age or younger, a time when it may be inferred that in the vast majority of instances puberty has not yet been reached. To our knowledge, ours is the largest series reported on of
de novo
melanomas, proven by metastasis, that began in children who presumably were prepubescent. In 1993, Pensler and coworkers, in an article titled, "Melanoma in pre-pubertal children,"
52
defined "pre-pubertal" as 13 years of age or younger and one of their patients was 13 years old. Only four of the nine children in their series had sure signs of metastasis of melanoma; in one of the four the melanoma originated in the central nervous system, in one the site of the primary melanoma was not known, and in two the primary melanoma was in the skin. All 11 prepubescent children who are the subjects of our study had primary cutaneous melanoma that metastasized.
By virtue of what is presented here we hope that fellow histopathologists will be able to recognize better an authentic primary cutaneous melanoma in a child, to make the diagnosis with confidence on the basis of repeatability of the appearance of it as viewed especially at scanning magnification of a conventional microscope, and to differentiate it with assurance from a Spitz's nevus.
* The word "melanoma," unmodified, is synonymous with malignant melanoma throughout this work.
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.