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: Scalzo et al., 1997; Eady, 1997; Crotty, 1997; Zhu et al., 1997
Scalzo and collaborators, in 1997,
63
recounted their experience with melanomas in 22 children 15 years of age and younger who had been treated at the Pigmented Lesion Clinic of the Massachusetts General Hospital over a 33-year period between 1962 and 1995. Only three of the 22 patients were 10 years of age or less, to wit, 10, 9, and 6 years of age (their Cases 5, 6 and 12, respectively) and all of them were alive after follow-up of 77, 18, and 60 months, respectively. No photomicrographs were accompanying. Scalzo et al. had this to say regarding the distinction histopathologically of Spitz's nevus from melanoma:
"The principal difficulty in the differential diagnosis of melanocytic tumours of childhood is the differentiation of the compound naevus of Spitz from malignant melanoma. There is no single criterion which is reliable in distinguishing the two lesions in young patients. . . . Histological features of malignant melanoma vary from lesion to lesion, and reliable diagnosis depends on recognition of a constellation of features."
Unfortunately, Scalzo and colleagues provided no information about what findings do enable a histopathologist to render a diagnosis, with repeatability and reliability, of Spitz's nevus and of melanoma.
In a letter to the editor of the
British Journal of Dermatology
in 1997 concerning "Malignant melanoma in childhood," Eady
64
wrote of his experience with two children, a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy, the former with a "superficial spreading melanoma" 1.1 mm thick on his back that had metastasized to cervical lymph nodes, but who was well four years after diagnosis of primary melanoma had been made, and the latter with a "nodular melanoma" 4.6 mm in thickness on the scalp from which metastases had gone to regional lymph nodes, but who also was said to be free of disease one year later. Eady made no mention of histopathologic findings in either melanoma.
In 1997, K. A. Crotty wrote again about "Spitz's nevus: Histological features and distinction from malignant melanoma."
65
With regard to "Spitz's nevi" that metastasized, she made these comments correctly:
"It is suggested that some cases of Spitz's naevus may metastasize to local lymph nodes and no further. Further study of these cases is warranted. If a lesion has been previously diagnosed as Spitz's naevus and subsequently metastasizes, especially beyond local lymph nodes, the lesion should not be called a metastasizing Spitz's naevus, or a malignant Spitz's naevus, but rather it should be reclassified as a Spitz-like malignant melanoma."
The last sentence of Crotty would have been better had the word "especially" been omitted.
In 1997, Zhu and coworkers
66
in the Departments of Plastic Surgery and Histopathology at the Franchay Hospital in Bristol, England reported on melanoma in 47 patients 21 years of age or younger, including 10 children 14 years of age or less, a period of time which the authors considered to be "preadolescent." Twenty-nine of the patients in this series were those reported on in 1986 by Moss and Briggs. No photomicrographs were shown, but this is what the authors wrote about problems in distinguishing melanoma from Spitz's nevi histopathologically:
"The differentiation of Spitz's naevi from invasive melanoma remains a problem. It has been said that the only certain method of diagnosing malignancy is when metastatic spread occurs. Of note, in our series, one case, an 8-year-old boy with a lesion on the scalp, was initially diagnosed as having a Spitz's naevus but later (5 years) developed nodular metastatic disease. He subsequently died from melanoma (7 years, 4 months after diagnosis). In the literature, there are many reports of lesions initially diagnosed as Spitz's naevi in which subsequent metastatic disease occurred. Such misinterpretation undoubtedly occurs as a result of genuine difficulty in differentiation but it may be compounded by a reluctance on the part of the pathologist to make the diagnosis of malignant melanoma in a child. In our report we can only re-emphasize that whilst the condition is rare it certainly exists."
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.