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: Spatz et al., 1996; Naasan et al., 1996
In 1996, Spatz and associates, in an article captioned, "Melanoma in childhood: An EORTC-MCG study on the clinico-pathological aspects,"
60
communicated the results of a multicenter study of 102 cutaneous melanomas in children 16 years of age or younger. The neoplasms were collected from members of the EORTC-Melanoma Cooperative Group between the years 1961 and 1994. Sixty of the 102 cases were thought by Spatz and colleagues to be authentic melanomas and 42 of the 102 were reclassified as Spitz's nevi after findings in sections of tissue had been reviewed. Eighteen of the melanomas were associated with such predisposing conditions as a congenital nevus, a family history of melanoma, and xeroderma pigmentosa. Clinical follow-up ranged from none to 27 years, the mean being five years. Information about each of the patients was entered into a computerized database and statistical analyses were performed. Based on these assessments, Spatz and coworkers came to view certain matters in this way:
"Confirmed melanomas were larger (i.e., 7 mm), and more often presented ulceration, high mitotic activity (5 mitoses/10 HPF [high power field]), mitosis in the lower third of the lesion, epithelioid melanocytes, asymmetry, lateral borders not well demarcated, lack of maturation, dusty melanin, and marked nuclear polymorphism . . . In 59 melanomas, the mean thickness was 3.00 mm, with a range of 0.20 mm to 15 mm; 39 cases (66%) were thicker than 1.5 mm."
With respect to information gleaned from follow-up, Spatz and associates made these comments:
"Among 60 patients with melanoma, follow-up ranged from 0 to 27 years (mean: 5 years). Nine patients had no follow-up. Forty-one patients (68%) were followed for more than one year. Twenty (39%) of the 51 patients with follow-up have had metastasis. Seven of these died of their disease, including one patient (Case 11) who died with multiple metastasis 14 years after the diagnosis, 3 were alive with melanoma, and 10 were free of disease after 44 and 328 months of follow-up (mean: 115 months). Thirty-one patients remained free of disease, with follow-up duration of 5 years or more for 20 patients. The 5-year survival rate is 84% . . . The only statistically significant [histopathologic] parameter associated with the development of metastasis or fatal outcome was a thickness of more than 2.0 mm (p<0.001)".
In 1996, Naasan et al.
61
told of their findings about cutaneous melanoma in 50 patients 14 years of age or younger whose neoplasm had been reported to the Scottish Melanoma Group which, since 1979, had registered 4700 melanomas. Of these 50 children, 15 were considered to be "prepubertal," defined by them as "14 years old or younger in males but 12 years old or younger in females." Eight patients developed metastases of melanoma. One of them, 10 years old at the time of diagnosis of the primary neoplasm, developed lymph node metastases five months later and died after 2 1/3 years. Based on the assessment of the histopathologic findings in these 50 melanomas, no photomicrographs of which were shown, Naasan and coworkers opined as follows:
"Histological review showed that the majority of cases (58 percent) exhibited typical cytological and architectural features of melanoma. In the remaining cases, the lesions were difficult to fit into any of the classic patterns of malignant melanoma or of the known benign nevocellular lesions. . . . Forty years after Spitz's initial description the overlap in the histological features remains considerable. Both melanomas and Spitz nevi have so many histological features in common that errors of overdiagnosis as melanoma, or of underdiagnosis as benign lesions are not infrequent. . . . Melanoma in children and adolescents remains rare. The disease behaves similarly to that in adults; hence, treatment should be the same."
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.