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: Wu and Lambert, 1997; Milton et al., 1997
Also in 1997, Wu and Lambert, in an article titled, "Melanoma in children and adolescents,"
67
addressed the subject of melanoma in 13 patients younger than 20 years, 11 of whom had primary cutaneous melanoma and two of whom had leptomeningeal melanoma. In three children the melanoma was positioned in a large congenital nevus; in eight the melanoma was said to be associated with another kind of nevus. Of these eight children, five were more than 10 years of age. Of the three children younger than 10 years of age was an 8-year-old boy who had on the left cheek a melanoma that metastasized to cervical and hilar lymph nodes and to lungs. He died nine months after diagnosis of the primary neoplasm had been made. The other two children, a 2-year-old girl with a melanoma on the plantar surface of the right great toe and a 7-year-old boy with a melanoma on the left temple were reportedly alive without evidence of metastatic disease 137 and 192 months, respectively, following diagnosis of the primary neoplasm. By dint of their experience with these patients, Wu and Lambert came to the conclusions:
"Nonmetastatic primary cutaneous melanoma is a survivable disease if detected early and treated by surgical excision; metastatic and leptomeningeal disease were uniformly fatal . . . A rare variant of nodular cutaneous melanoma—Spitzoid [sic] melanoma—has characteristics of the benign Spitz's nevus and has been misdiagnosed as such."
Milton and coworkers, also in 1997,
68
recorded their experience with cutaneous melanoma in 32 patients who were less than 13 years of age. They did that in an article titled, "Malignant melanoma—cutaneous melanoma in childhood: Incidence and prognosis." The patients were drawn from two large referral centers for melanoma in Australia between January 1950 and September 1996. None of the melanomas were situated in a giant congenital nevus or associated with either xeroderma pigmentosa or immunodeficiency. Seven of 15 children died of the effects of metastases of melanoma. The authors had this to say about these children, one of them in particular:
"The disease-free interval was short (<39 months) in all but one 5-year-old girl (case 6), whose history was of particular interest. The primary lesion in this child was originally diagnosed as melanoma despite her age. This diagnosis was subsequently substantiated by her death from metastatic melanoma after a disease-free interval of 12 years."
By 'disease-free,' Milton and colleagues intended to convey "seemingly disease-free;" in fact, this child lived for 12 years with metastases that had been disseminated prior to the excision of the primary melanoma in the skin.
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.