The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Content within the patient forum is user-generated and has not been reviewed by medical professionals. Other sections of the Melanoma Research Foundation website include information that has been reviewed by medical professionals as appropriate. All medical decisions should be made in consultation with your doctor or other qualified medical professional.

Understanding the Pathology Report

Forums General Melanoma Community Understanding the Pathology Report

  • Post
    JennH
    Participant

      Hello, I am newly diagnosed with what is being called Spitzoid type Melanoma. I am currently awaiting Wide Excision surgery and Sentinal Node Biopsy. I am curious if someone can help put the Pathology report into Lehman's terms. I understand the staging, depth and clarks, but beyond that, can't wrap my head around the seriousness, if any. Can someone help? I had two biopsies performed, the first is listed first.

      Malignant melanoma, spitzoid type.
      Breslow measurement: At least 1.1 millimeters.
      Clark's level: IV.
      Surface ulceration: Absent.
      Precursor lesion: Not identified.
      Regression: Not identified.
      Lymphocytic response: Nonbrisk.
      Mitotic index: 1/mm 2.
      Lymphovascular channel involvement: Not identified.
      Neurotropism: Not identified.
      Satellite lesions: Not identified.
      Margins: Tumor extends to the deep and lateral margins.
      Tumor staging: At least pT2aNxMx.
      See comment.

      COMMENTS:

      This case was sent for consultation to Dr. Pedram Gerami at North Western Medical Group Department of Dermatology. His additional comments are as follows:

      ''The sections show a markedly atypical spitzoid melanocytic neoplasm. There is high grade nuclear atypia, notable pleomorphism and lack of maturation. FISH studies showed chromosomal copy number gains in 6p25 and 11q13 in greater than 50% of enumerated cells consistent with a diagnosis of Spitzoid melanoma. Homozygous deletions at 9p21 were not identified.
      FISH evaluation using probes for Cyclin D1, RREB1, MYB and CEP6 were performed. These probes are approved as analytic specific reagents. In our laboratory, this probe set performed with a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 95.4% in distinguishing benign nevi from melanoma. Thirty cells were enumerated. Less than 55% of cells showed relative gain of RREB1 but greater than 30% of cells show absolute gain of RREB1. The average MYB per CEP6 loss is less than 40%. Greater than 38% of cells had gain in Cyclin D1. The average nuclear signals for CEP6 was less than 2.5. We also performed FISH targeting 9p21 and CEP9 and there is no evidence of homozygous deletions.''

      END OF CONSULTANT'S NOTE

      CLINICAL INFORMATION

      CLINICAL HISTORY:
      Preoperative Diagnosis: A. ICD: D48.9 NUB, Nevus, R/O atypia. B. ICD: D48.9 NUB, Nevus, R/O atypia.
      Postoperative Diagnosis:
      Symptoms/Radiologic Findings:
      Procedure:

      MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION:

      A. There are uniform clusters of benign appearing nevus cells in the dermis. A junctional component is not appreciated.

      B. Sections show a spitzoid melanocytic proliferation confined to the dermis. The overlying epidermis shows acanthosis. The melanocytes have an epithelioid morphology with scattered pleomorphic cells. To better evaluate this lesion, the following immunohistochemical stains are performed and compared to appropriate stained controls: Melan-A/Ki-67 dual stain, HMB-45, P16. The Melan-A/Ki-67 dual stain demonstrates an intradermal proliferation of epithelioid cells with a slight increase in the proliferation index. The HMB-45 demonstrates variable staining. The P16 demonstrates loss of p16 in areas.

      Malignant melanoma, spitzoid type.
      Breslow measurement: At least 2.5 millimeters, focally transected at the base.
      Clark's level: At least IV, focally transected at the base.
      Surface ulceration: Absent.
      Precursor lesion: Not identified.
      Regression: Not identified.
      Lymphocytic response: Non-brisk.
      Mitotic index: Less than one per square millimeter.
      Lymphovascular channel involvement: Not identified.
      Neurotropism: Not identified.
      Satellite lesions: Not identified.
      Margins: Tumor extends to the deep margin.
      Tumor staging: At least pT3aNX.

      CLINICAL INFORMATION

      CLINICAL HISTORY:

      Preoperative Diagnosis: ICD Code: D48.9 NUB. Biopsy proven spitzoid melanoma reshave for micro staging.

      MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION:

      Sections show a markedly atypical spitzoid melanocytic neoplasm confined to the dermis. The lesion shows variable cellularity with frequent pleomorphic cells and multinucleated cells. The melanocytes fail to mature with decent into the dermis. The lesion is transected at the deep margin through the deep reticular dermis.

    Viewing 2 reply threads
    • Replies
        MelanomaMike
        Participant
          Hi Jholcomb, pleasure to meet you, im Mike the Door Keeper, Butler or what ever other names i tend to be. I didnt want your post to go without a reply for to long, just hold tight & check back here periodically, we have alotta knowledgeable folks who will help you, im dumb as wood, exotic & very fragrant wood, but dumb wood..i am stage 4 (both lungs) and on Opdivo. Well, welcome to our humble clubhouse, someone will reply to you at some point! Keep calm, and stay strong…Mike
          Janner
          Participant

            I've read a lot of pathology reports.  Unfortunately, I've read no reports that discuss the FISH testing – they are usually done in a separate analysis and not at the time of the original pathology.  FISH testing is helpful for Spitzoid type tumors because Spitz nevi can be totally benign but look very much like melanoma under the microscope.  The FISH test does more DNA analysis to determine if there are few genetic mutations (benign) versus more significant genetic mutations (cancerous). 

            Both lesions were transected at the depth – I'd never let them do a shave biopsy on you again.  You will never know the true depth of each lesion.  You can't just "add" what is left to what was removed, you can't match up the skin samples to know the depth.  Both lesions require a SLNB based on depth.  Also a much bigger WLE to remove the rest of the lesion and achieve wide margins.  The rest of the features of the lesion are more or less what you'd hope to see:  no ulceration and low mitotic rate.  I can't comment on anything related to the FISH results.

              JennH
              Participant

                Thanks for your response Janner. The two biopsies are from the same lesion. I am scheduled for the WLE and SLNB in the next few weeks. 

                Hoping for more clarification on prognosis and what to expect. The doctor said not to Google anything, but it's tough when you don't have any information from the Dr. and nothing to go by. I am pretty calm and understand the waiting game. Just tough waiting a month for answers, when your'e not even sure what the question is. 

                Thanks again,

                Janner
                Participant

                  Ok, that part was confusing – I was assuming 2 lesions.  Good luck on the next set of tests.  As for googling now, it's pointless.  Wait until you have the results of all your testing.  Then you'll have a final staging and then you can better know what makes sense to research.  Right now, you could be stage II but after the SLNB, you may be stage III.  The treatment, prognosis and followups differ by stage so your doc was right (at least for now) that searching the internet is of limited value.  This site is always a good one to ask questions. 

                MMH
                Participant

                  Hi JHolcomb. 

                  I am a 44 year old female, recently diagnosed with spitzoid melanoma. It is tough to find information on the type, so I understand your frustration/concern. Your pathology report is WAY more detailed than mine and it seems they went the extra step of doing a genetic analysis right off the bat? I imagine that is a useful diagnositc tool, but I am obviously not an expert. 

                  Please keep us posted on your next steps.  Hang in there, I know this is tough. 

                  MMH    

                   

                   

                    JennH
                    Participant

                      Thanks MMH, Looking forward to hearing what it all means! Likely, good luck on your journey, I look forward to hearing how you are doing.

                Viewing 2 reply threads
                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
                About the MRF Patient Forum

                The MRF Patient Forum is the oldest and largest online community of people affected by melanoma. It is designed to provide peer support and information to caregivers, patients, family and friends. There is no better place to discuss different parts of your journey with this cancer and find the friends and support resources to make that journey more bearable.

                The information on the forum is open and accessible to everyone. To add a new topic or to post a reply, you must be a registered user. Please note that you will be able to post both topics and replies anonymously even though you are logged in. All posts must abide by MRF posting policies.

                Popular Topics