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
>
Historical Perspective: Pontius and Dziabis, 1961; McGovern and Goulston, 1963
In 1961, Pontius and Dziabis
20
commented on a 5 -year-old boy whose skin lesion situated on the left posterior axillary fold was excised but not submitted for examination histopathologically. Four months later, a "mass" in the resultant scar was diagnosed as a "benign pigmented mole." The patient subsequently developed pulmonary and lymph node metastases and died. After reflecting on the findings in their patient and reviewing the literature, the authors arrived at these conclusions:
"The malignant melanomas in children show histological patterns of excessive virulence of cellular anaplasia with nuclear pleomorphism, hyperchromatism, variable clumping of nuclear chromatin and increased thickness of nuclear membranes, variability of amount of cytoplasm and increased numbers of mitotic figures. These, combined with a lack of the above described characteristic features of the juvenile melanoma, designate a malignant lesion. The malignant melanomas in children and adults are almost histologically inseparable."
In 1963, McGovern and Goulston engaged the subject of "Malignant moles in childhood"
21
and reported on eight children whom they judged to be "pre-pubertal," though three were 11 years of age or older, one being 11 and two 12. Four of the eight children, including two of the three children who were 11 years of age or older, had died of metastases before the article was completed. McGovern and Goulston began their essay with this sentence:
"Malignant melanoma rarely affects children, but when it does, it behaves in exactly the same way as it does in adults."
That statement is only partially true. It is true that melanoma affects children rarely and when it does has capability to metastasize and cause death. As will become apparent as the reader reads on, however, melanomas in prepubescents behave differently in some respects from melanomas in postpubescents.
With respect to the development of melanoma in association with a congenital or an acquired nevus, McGovern and Goulston made these statements:
"Most naevoid
[congenital]
moles which become malignant do so before the patient reaches the age of 50 years, while most acquired lesions
[moles]
which become malignant do so after that age. . . . In seven of our eight cases the moles which became malignant were of the naevoid type."
The meaning of those sentences is elusive to us.
Based on all of their findings, McGovern and Goulston arrived at these conclusions:
"Our observations lead us to believe that moles of congenital or nevoid type may become malignant independent of solar exposure and that most of those occurring in childhood fall into this category. Acquired naevi which become malignant are mainly the result of excessive solar exposure in fair-skinned persons. One example of this type was seen in a child who suffered from xeroderma pigmentosum. The behavior of melanoblastoma in children is similar to its behavior in adults and so it should be treated similarly."
McGovern and Goulston were under the misapprehension that most melanomas in children developed in a pre-existing nevus, whereas, in reality, the majority of those melanomas arise
de novo,
that is, not in association with either a congenital or an acquired nevus.
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.