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: Trozak et al., 1975; Shanon et al., 1976
In 1975, Trozak and associates reviewed the literature concerning metastatic melanoma in pre-pubertal children.
28
They classified the melanomas as follows: "Type I" referred to melanoma acquired transplacentally, "Type II" to melanoma that metastasized at the onset before puberty, and "Type III" to melanomas that began before puberty in a giant melanocytic nevus. Although they never defined what they meant by puberty, the authors did include children 14 years of age or younger in their series. With regard to Type II melanomas, that is, their 44 examples of primary melanomas that metastasized before puberty, Trozak et al. made these observations:
"Nine patients had a pigmented lesion at the site of the melanoma at birth, and one patient (case 31) was born with malignant melanoma which was confirmed within days after birth. Thirty-five cases could be used to determine five-year survival figures. At the end of this time, 12 patients were symptom-free at the time reported, and the 12th patient (case 15) had metastasis five years from the time her melanoma was discovered and died one year later. This type of childhood melanoma is clinically analogous to cutaneous melanoma in adults."
Trozak and coworkers also presented one patient of their own, a 4-month-old male infant with a 3.0 mm pigmented lesion on the cheek that was
"first noted three weeks earlier by the mother [and subsequently] the lesion had grown rapidly."
The child developed metastases to regional lymph nodes 16 months later and was said to be free of disease 20 years later. By "free" the authors could only have meant free of overt signs of metastasis. Trozak et al. showed clinical pictures of the primary neoplasm and of the metastases, as well as photomicrographs taken at high power of the histopathologic findings, about which they commented thus:
"Atypical clear and pigment-containing cells have replaced the lower epidermis in the central part of the lesion, reaching within two or three cell layers of the stratum corneum and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. In the dermis the tumor cells are arranged in nests and cords and extend laterally at least one or two papillary spaces beyond the margins of the involved epidermis and downward to the dermal subcutaneous interface, but there is no definite invasion into fat tissue. . . . Of the two involved lymph nodes, one is completely replaced and the other partially replaced by tumor cells that resemble those in the primary lesion of the skin."
In 1976, Shanon and associates, in an article captioned, "Malignant melanoma of the head and neck in children: Review of the literature and report of a case,"
29
opined that melanomas of the head and neck are rare in children. That they commented on a 2-1/2-year-old girl who at one year of age was diagnosed as having a melanoma that developed
de novo
on the helix of her right ear. One and a half years later, metastases were found in a cervical lymph node. Review of the literature enabled Shannon et al. to identify 13 examples of melanoma on the head and neck of children. That they concurred with McGovern and Goulston and with Kopf and Andrade about the behavior of melanomas in children is evident in this sentence of theirs:
"Review of the literature suggests that childhood malignant melanoma does not differ biologically in any substantial way from its adulthood counterpart."
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.