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: Conti et al., 2001; Fabrizi and Massi, 2001
Conti and co-workers, also in 2001,
82
analyzed 212 cases of melanoma in children 14 years of age or younger who had been followed for a period of at least five years. Their patients were culled from the registries of 17 European countries that participated in the EUROCARE database during the interval between 1978 and 1989. They sought to obtain data about survival and other information for the purpose of generating statistics. No histopathologic findings were presented or pictured. Conti and associates stated this about the relationship of age and prognosis:
"Overall survival for all was generally good (79%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6091), with no differences between gender. Some survival differences emerged when the age classes were considered separately: survival was lower in boys diagnosed in the age range 1014 years (64%; 95% CI 4381 at 5 years) and 14 years (42%; 95% CI 2562 at 5 years)."
The collaborators concluded thus:
In children, survival for MM [malignant melanoma] is slightly different to that of adults. Since the natural history of the disease is not influenced by age, a better prognosis in children is probably due to the early radical removal of pigmented skin lesions, a situation favored by the greater awareness of parents and physician of the dangers of melanoma and also because of the antiaesthetic features of skin lesions."
In 2001, Fabrizi and Massi
83
wrote about what they called melanoma of the "spitzoid" type in teenagers. One melanoma that developed on the leg of a 15-year-old boy was diagnosed initially as "Spitz nevus." Five years later, the patient developed metastases of melanoma to regional lymph nodes, lungs, and brain. He died eight years after the erroneous diagnosis of Spitz's nevus was made. The other patient was a 19-year-old whose lesion on the back was diagnosed as a "spindle cell-type Spitz naevus." Fifteen years later, he developed signs of metastases of melanoma to the skin of the back, the retroperitoneum, and the pelvic bones. Predicated on knowledge gained from these two patients, Fabrizi and Massi offered these thoughts:
"As regards the nature of these lesions our cases point out that a fatal outcome can be provided if the patients are followed for long enough (one of the cases metastasized 15 years after the diagnosis) and the good prognosis proposed for these entities in the past has to be corrected.
In conclusion it seems that the diagnosis of a life-threatening melanoma should be made without hesitation if a combination of nuclear and nucleoloar pleomorphism, mitoses and growth in solid sheets of cells is found in a melanocytic neoplasm with features of a Spitz naevus in an adolescent."
Both teenage patients of Fabrizi and Massi had a melanoma that was misdiagnosed histopathologically as Spitz's nevus or an equivalent designation for it. Both lived with their metastases for years, one even for 15 years. These findings call into question the conclusion of Helwig 25 years before to the effect that melanomas in children have a better prognosis than do melanomas in adults and they indicate that melanomas in young persons have the same potential for metastasis as do melanomas in adults. Moreover, those metastases end in death irrespective of how closely the primary melanoma resembles a Spitz's nevus histopathologically.
<
Previous
|
Next
>
This site is made possible in part by:
Copyright © Derm101.com. All Rights Reserved.