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: Skov-Jensen et al., 1966; Zwaveling et al., 1966; Saksela and Rintala, 1968
In 1966, Skov-Jensen and coworkers reported on two children with melanoma, a 12-year-old girl with
"malignant melanoma in the perineal region"
24
who developed metastasis to the right inguinal lymph nodes and died nine months later of widespread metastatic melanoma, and a 2-year-old boy who had a melanoma on the thigh thought clinically to be a pyogenic granuloma and that metastasized to an inguinal lymph node. That boy was said to be alive five years later and with no evidence of metastatic disease. Photomicrographs of the neoplasms in both children were shown, including metastases from them, but all of them are shown at such high magnification that little information of consequence can be gleaned from them. The authors also presented a detailed review of the literature concerning 43 examples of melanoma in children reported on until that time, and came to the conclusions that follow:
"From a survey of 43 reported cases of malignant melanoma with metastases in children, and from 2 cases of our own, it appears that the disease at this stage is at least as aggressive in children as in adults. The 3-year survival rate in children compares with the 5-year survival rate in adults at a similar stage in the disease."
Also in 1966, Zwaveling and associates wrote about a 6-year-old who, for a year and a half, had a lesion that was enlarging on a toe of the right foot.
25
By the time the child was examined by a physician the tumor was 2.0 cm by 2.0 cm and bleeding. Sections of tissue from the biopsy specimen showed a "melanocarcinoma cutis." Two years and five months later, evidence histopathologically of metastasis of melanoma was discovered in lymph nodes in the right groin. The authors made these recommendations for management:
"Malignant melanoma in children has to be treated in the same way as in grown ups. The primary tumor must be excised with 4 to 5 centimeters of healthy tissue around it in order to reduce the risk of satellite tumors . . . Whether the deep fascia must be taken is not yet clear."
Two years later, in 1968, Saksela and Rintala, in an article about "Misdiagnosis of prepubertal melanoma: Reclassification of a cancer registry material,"
26
called attention to what they thought to be a disproportionate number of nevi diagnosed as prepubertal melanoma in children. Those colleagues studied 20 children 14 years of age or younger entered in the Finnish Cancer Registry with a diagnosis of melanoma during the period between 1954 and 1963. In 17 cases, sections of tissue were available for review, and based on it, nine lesions were reclassified as spindle and/or epithelioid nevi, two as malignant melanomas, two as cellular blue nevi, two as compound nevi, and two as neoplasms other than melanoma. The authors stated that they adhered strictly to "the differential diagnostic criteria of epithelioid and/or spindle cell nevi ("juvenile melanomas") proposed by Allen and Spitz." Of the two melanomas, one occurred in the axilla of a 14-year-old boy in whom a "small mole" had been removed from the back two years previously. The lesion in the axilla was thought to be a metastasis from that lesion and nine months later the child died from metastases of melanoma. The other melanoma occurred on the foot of a two-year-old girl and was said to have been noticed "one year previously," that is, when the child was one year of age. Abnormal melanocytes of that neoplasm subsequently metastasized to inguinal lymph nodes. At the time the article by Saksela and Rintala was published, however, the child was reputed to be well.
Predicated on their experience, Saksela and Rintala made these comments about the vagaries histopathologically of juvenile melanoma and malignant melanoma:
"The differential diagnosis of spindle cell and/or epithelioid cell nevus from malignant melanoma is a difficult one in general pathologic practices as shown by the present material. The tendency to diagnose the benign lesions as malignant will lead to unnecessary radical treatment and the psychologic trauma to the patient must be considerable. Careful evaluation of the differential diagnostic points advanced by Allen and Spitz seems to make accurate diagnosis possible in most cases as indicated by the agreement of diagnosis and survival data in the present material. . . . The histologic picture of spindle cell and/or epithelioid cell nevi was generally quite clear-cut; only in one case did the diagnosis pose considerable difficulties. The fact that in this latter case the criteria did not quite objectively allow definite diagnosis, but the decision was made partly by experience and judgment illustrates the point made by Allen and Spitz and Lund and Kraus as well as by others that in a minority of cases any set of histologic criteria may fail to lead to correct diagnosis."
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.