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: Boddie, et al., 1978
In 1978, Boddie and colleagues, in an article concerning "Malignant melanoma in children and young adults: Effect of diagnostic criteria on staging and end results,"
31
offered and employed criteria for distinguishing melanoma histopathologically from Spitz's nevus. Those criteria were derived from their analysis of findings in melanoma in 125 patients whose records were culled from 3,175 patients diagnosed as having melanoma at M.D. Anderson Hospital between 1944 and 1975. The melanomas in their series had been biopsied some time between birth and 29 years of age. Of the 125 melanomas, 15 were in children 12 years of age or younger. Stereotypical of the histopathologic attributes that Boddie and associates considered requisite for diagnosis of melanoma were those in an 11-year-old boy whose neoplasm on a shoulder had metastasized and caused death two years after the diagnosis of the primary neoplasm had been established. The histopathologic findings in the melanoma in that boy were described by Boddie et al. as follows:
". . . Within the epidermis there was a proliferation of atypical, moderately pleomorphic melanocytic cells. Individual cells and small clusters of cells were observed progressing upward in the epidermis some clusters being extruded onto the surface. Pigmentation of the cells ranged from slight to marked. Mitotic figures were found with ease, there being 20 per ten high power fields, or an average of approximately two per single HPF
[high power field].
Several of the mitoses were abnormal. Invasion extended into the reticular dermis, making it a level IV lesion. Its greatest thickness was 1.8 mm. The cells infiltrating the reticular dermis did not show the 'fixed' relationship with the dermal stoma as seen in benign nevi, including spindle and epithelioid cell nevi. The inflammatory response was minimal in this lesion, suggesting poor immunologic defense against the tumor."
Apart from the number of mitotic figures and the abnormality of some of them, the criteria used by Boddie and co-workers for distinguishing spindle and epithelioid cell nevus from melanoma are not effective; the histopathologic changes recorded by them may be observed in both the benign and the malignant neoplasm.
Boddie and collaborators took note of the fact that
"All patients under 12 years of age in this series, however, who developed clinical criteria of malignant melanoma such as regional or distant metastasis after excision, ultimately died of their disease."
This is in striking contrast to the inference of Helwig who had championed the idea that true melanomas in children, even those that had metastasized, had a better prognosis than melanomas in adults, especially when the melanomas in children bore resemblance histopathologically to spindle and epithelioid cell nevus.
One hundred and ten melanomas in the series of Boddie and collaborators occurred in teenagers between ages 13 and 19. That prompted them to comment about the influence of puberty on melanoma thus:
"The incidence of malignant melanoma increases sharply at the time of puberty. In this series, six cases were seen in children 13 years of age, as compared to only 15 cases seen in children from birth through age 12. Throughout the teen-age period, there was a steady rise in cases to peak at 29 in the 19-year-old group. In terms of diagnostic criteria, symptoms and clinical behavior, malignant melanomas occurring in patients 13 to 19 years of age more closely resemble their adult counterparts."
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.