Reliability of the Histopathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Melanoma in Childhood | Pediatric Cancer | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Ceballos  PIRuiz-Maldonado  RMihm  MC Melanoma in childhood.  N Engl J Med. 1995;332656- 662Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Lartigau  ESpatz  AAvril  MF  et al.  Melanoma arising de novo in childhood: experience of the Gustave-Roussy Institute.  Melanoma Res. 1995;5117- 122Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Sellami  MAuclerc  GWeil  M  et al.  Melanoma malin de l'enfant et de l'adolescent.  Bull Cancer. 1986;732- 7Google Scholar
4.
Tate  PSRonan  SGFeucht  KA  et al.  Melanoma in childhood and adolescence: clinical and pathological features of 48 cases.  J Pediatr Surg. 1993;28217- 222Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Reintgen  DSVollmer  RSeigler  HF Juvenile malignant melanoma.  Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989;168249- 253Google Scholar
6.
Rao  BNHayes  FAPratt  CB  et al.  Malignant melanoma in children: its management and prognosis.  J Pediatr Surg. 1990;25198- 203Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Pratt  CBPalmer  MKThatcher  N  et al.  Malignant melanoma in children and adolescents.  Cancer. 1981;47392- 397Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Saenz  CSaenz-Badillos  JBusam  KLaQuaglia  MPCorbally  MBrady  MS Childhood melanoma survival.  Cancer. 1999;85750- 754Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Barnhill  RLFlotte  TJFleischli  MPerez-Atayde  A Cutaneous melanoma and atypical Spitz tumors in childhood.  Cancer. 1995;761833- 1845Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Scalzo  DAHide  CAToth  GSober  AJMihm  MC  Jr Childhood melanoma: a clinicopathological study of 22 cases.  Melanoma Res. 1997;763- 68Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Wu  SJLambert  DR Melanoma in children and adolescents.  Pediatr Dermatol. 1997;1487- 92Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Spatz  ARuiter  DHardmeier  T  et al.  Melanoma in childhood: an EORTC-MCG multicenter study on the clinicopathological aspects.  Int J Cancer. 1996;68317- 324Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Trozak  DJRowland  WDHu  F Metastatic malignant melanoma in prepubertal children.  Pediatrics. 1975;55191- 204Google Scholar
14.
Vennin  PBaranzelli  MCDemaille  MC  et al.  Les mélanomes de l'enfant et de l'adolescent.  Presse Med. 1985;14529- 532Google Scholar
15.
Mehregan  AHMehregan  DA Malignant melanoma in childhood.  Cancer. 1993;714096- 4103Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Horgan  KLawlor  DCorcoran  N  et al.  Prepubertal melanoma.  J Pediatr Surg. 1987;221039- 1040Google ScholarCrossref
17.
Lerman  RIMurray  DO'Hara  JM  et al.  Malignant melanoma of childhood.  Cancer. 1970;25436- 449Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Crotty  KAMcCarthy  SWPalmer  AANg  ABPThompson  JFGianoutsos  MP Malignant melanoma in childhood: a clinicopathologic study of 13 cases and comparison with Spitz nevi.  World J Surg. 1992;16179- 185Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Spitz  S Melanomas of childhood.  Am J Pathol. 1948;24591- 609Google Scholar
20.
Allen  ACSpitz  S Malignant melanoma: a clinico-pathological analysis of the criteria for diagnosis and prognosis.  Cancer. 1952;61- 45Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Allen  AC Introduction to melanomas of childhood by Spitz.  CA Cancer J Clin. 1991;4137- 39Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Skov-Jensen  THastrup  JLambrethsen  E Malignant melanomas in children.  Cancer. 1966;19620- 626Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Kramer  MSFeistein  AR Clinical biostatistics, LIV: the biostatistics of concordance.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;29111- 123Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Landis  RJKoch  GG The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.  Biometrics. 1977;33159- 174Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Spatz  ACalonje  EHandfield-Jones  SBarnhill  RL Spitz tumors in children: a grading system for risk stratification.  Arch Dermatol. 1999;135282- 285Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Peters  MSGoellner  JR Spitz naevi and malignant melanomas of childhood and adolescence.  Histopathology. 1986;101289- 1302Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Weinstock  MABarnhill  RLRhodes  ARBrodsky  GL Reliability of the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic dysplasia.  Arch Dermatol. 1997;133953- 958Google ScholarCrossref
Study
May 2002

Reliability of the Histopathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Melanoma in Childhood

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Pathology at Hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil (Dr Wechsler), Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif (Dr Spatz), Centre Léon-Bérard, Lyon (Dr Bailly), Hôpital Nord, Marseille (Dr Andrac-Meyer), Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, Pessac (Dr Vergier), and Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (Dr Fraitag) and Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris (Dr Verola); the Laboratory of Cutaneous Histopathology, University Hospital, Strasbourg (Dr Cribier); and the Departments of Public Heath (Dr Bastuji-Garin) and Dermatology (Dr Wolkenstein), Université Paris XII, Hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil (AP-HP), France.

Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(5):625-628. doi:10.1001/archderm.138.5.625
Abstract

Objective  To assess interrater reliability in the diagnosis of malignant melanoma in children.

Design, Setting, and Participants  We collected 85 slides of melanomas diagnosed in patients younger than 17 years through a network of dermatopathologists and dermatologists. The slides were classified into 3 categories: (1) slides from children with metastatic melanoma; (2) slides from disease-free children with a follow-up of less than 5 years; (3) slides from disease-free children with a follow-up of 5 years or longer. Category 1 was considered the gold standard. Four pairs of expert dermatopathologists reviewed the slides and classified them into melanoma, nevus (including Spitz nevus), or ambiguous tumors.

Intervention  None.

Main Outcome Measure  Concordance between pairs of experts.

Results  For category 1 slides (n = 20), the concordance was weak to moderate. For category 2 slides (n = 47), the concordance was weak. For category 3 slides (n = 18), the concordance was poor to moderate.

Conclusion  This study demonstrates that the reliability of diagnosis of melanoma in childhood is poor, even when submitted to experts.

×