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: Barnhill et al., 1995
In 1995, Barnhill and coworkers
55
studied 23 children 15 years of age or younger who were referred to Children's Hospital in Boston with a diagnosis of melanoma, and they shared their observations about the neoplasms in these children in an article titled, "Cutaneous melanoma and atypical Spitz tumors in childhood." The neoplasms were separated by them into four groups, namely, "small cell melanoma," "adult-like melanoma," "Spitz-like melanoma," and "atypical Spitz tumors." Barnhill and associates identified five children whom they considered to have the "small cell variant" of melanoma. Those neoplasms were confined to the scalp, and all the children who had them were dead of metastasis of melanoma 5 to 12 months after diagnosis of the primary neoplasm had been made. The melanomas ranged in thickness from 2.8 mm to 15.0 mm. Two of the children were 10 years of age or less, both of them being 4 years old; the other 3 children were 12 years old and one of them was 13. Of this supposed variant of melanoma, Barnhill and colleagues said this:
"Histologically, these tumors[small-cell variant of melanoma in children] contained a significant component of relatively small cells with round or oval nuclei and generally scant cytoplasm, usually disposed in sheets. The general impression was a monomorphous population of cells, suggesting lymphoma, a small round-cell tumor, or a melanocytic nevus. . . . Two melanomas were deeply invasive into subcutaneous fat and were characterized by irregular nodules of melanoma cells. Three melanomas had intradermal components, whereas two were entirely dermal. . . . One melanoma developed in association with a congenital nevus."
Six examples of the "adult" variant of melanoma were recognized by Barnhill et al., who categorized them histopathologically as "pagetoid," "nodular," "spindle, polygonal cell," "lentiginous, polygonal cell," and "lentiginous." About the histopathologic findings in the "adult" variant of childhood melanoma, Barnhill and associates made these statements:
"Two melanomas displayed a prominent pagetoid intraepidermal component, in one case, in situ, and in the other, invasive to 1.12 mm. The latter in situ melanoma arose in association with a compound dysplastic nevus . . . Three melanomas (two in situ) showed mainly basilar intraepidermal (lentiginous) patterns of melanocytic proliferation. . . . The invasive melanoma occurred on the cheek of a 3-year-old male with xeroderma pigmentosa."
Three children 10 years of age or younger in the study of Barnhill et al. had the "adult" type of melanoma, their ages being 4, 3, and 9 years; all were alive 12, 4, and 4 months, respectively, after diagnosis of the primary neoplasm had been made. The 4-year-old child was said to have the "spindle, polygonal cell" type of adult melanoma, the 3-year-old the "lentiginous" type, and the 9-year-old the "pagetoid" type. Two adolescents, both 15 years of age, died of metastasis from this type of melanoma. According to Barnhill and associates, the 4-year-old and the 9-year-old both had a melanoma that was
in situ.
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.