Well-defined nests of amelanotic cells surrounded by collagen and variable numbers of dendritic melanocytes and melanophages comprise the alveolar pattern of CBN (Fig. 4B). The merging of the alveolar pattern into nevoid cell sheets or areas of a fascicular pattern is common. Occasionally, the nests may be separated by areas of loose, edematous tissue, which may represent precursors to cystic change.74 In the fascicular or neuronevoid pattern, the tumor is composed of fascicles of amelanotic spindle cells with clear cytoplasm, surrounded by fibrous tissue containing dendritic melanocytes and melanophages. Neuroid structures are frequently interspersed with the tumor.74 Occasional tumors may contain balloon cells with vacuolated/foamy cytoplasm.89 Rare cases may exhibit myxoid stroma.90 Mitotic activity is usually absent and should be low (<1/mm2).74 Focal areas of necrosis have been reported as being present in rare cases of otherwise benign CBN,74 although in our view, the presence of any necrosis is an atypical finding and concerning for malignancy. If isolated mitotic activity or necrosis is present but no other atypical findings (including cell crowding, nuclear atypia, hyperchromasia, or expansile growth) are seen, we report such tumors as atypical CBN and state that it is not possible to predict the biologic behavior/malignant potential of the tumor with certainty from its morphologic features but consider the risk of aggressive behavior to be low. The cells are usually positive for S-100 and HMB-45,91,92 although we have seen some cases which are negative for S-100 and exhibit only weak or focal positivity for HMB-45. In view of the often prominent melanin pigmentation of these lesions, the use of a red chromogen for immunohistochemistry usually allows easier interpretation than a brown chromogen. A rare angiomatoid variant of CBN containing numerous dilated blood vessels has been described.93
Kazakov and Michal noted the presence of “ball in mitts” structures in CBNs, composed of a single centrally placed rounded or oval melanocyte (ball) encircled by a single dendritic cell (mitt) with an oval or spindle-shaped nucleus and slender bipolar processes containing melanin and surrounding at least a quarter of the diameter of the rounded melanocyte. They also found “microalveolar structures,” composed of 2 to 10 central rounded cells surrounded by one or more dendritic cells similar to those seen in the “ball in mitts” structures. The authors noted that similar structures may occur in combined nevi, deep penetrating nevi, acquired melanocytic nevi and in common blue nevi, and in light of this, they proposed that there may be a spectrum of evolution from common acquired nevus to combined nevus to CBN and deep penetrating nevus (DPN) through a progressive expansion and prominence of the “ball in mitts” and “microalveolar structures.”94 However, differences in the clinicopathologic characteristics of blue nevi (and their variants) and common nevi are against this hypothesis.
Histologically, PTBN shows a combination of features seen in DBN and CBN. In addition to pigmented spindle and dendritic cells, aggregates of variably pigmented epithelioid and often clear melanocytic cells are present, as are foci extending deeply into subcutaneous tissues. The dermal melanocytes are often found in a periappendageal and perivascular location (Figs. 5A, B). No significant cytologic atypia is seen and mitotic activity is rare (Fig. 5C).85,86,95 The lesional cells are positive for S-100, HMB-45 (Gp100), and Melan-A/Mart-1 (A103).84 Busam et al84 suggested that onset in childhood and the presence of heterogenous (DBN-like and CBN-like) areas are features that distinguish PTBN from CBN. However, as PTBN are composed of areas resembling CBN, histologic distinction between these entities is not possible without correlation with the clinical features. For this reason, we regard PTBN as a clinicopathologic variant of CBN characterized by large size and extension along fascial planes.
CBNs show a range of histologic features, which may cause them to be misdiagnosed as melanoma. Rare cases of melanoma arising within preexisting CBN have also been reported.75,96 Also, congenital giant CBNs may show intracranial involvement and such tumors are associated with a high rate of malignant transformation, often occurring before puberty.78,79,97 Like melanoma, CBN is usually composed of large epithelioid and/or spindle cells, lacks maturation with depth, may extend deeply, may be pigmented, and may contain an occasional mitotic figure.6,74,98 Perineural extension and intralymphatic tumor may be seen in CBNs and does not indicate malignancy. Various histologic features have been proposed as being helpful for the discrimination of CBN and CBN-like melanoma. However, these criteria are not infallible and in those cases with some atypical but not overtly malignant features, confident prediction of likely biological behavior may not always be possible on the basis of the morphologic assessment of the primary tumor. Pathologic features reported as favoring malignancy include tumoral necrosis, cytologic atypia and pleomorphism, and frequent mitoses (>2/mm2).6 Other findings that favor melanoma over CBN include the presence of large pleomorphic epithelioid cells, cell crowding (usually associated with increased cell nuclear to cytoplasmic ratios), an “infiltrating” growth pattern (where the margins of the tumor are irregular, as opposed to the generally rounded or “pushing” margins of CBN), expansile growth, the presence of junctional activity (especially if it is atypical or shows pagetoid epidermal invasion), or the presence of a “sarcomatoid” growth component, in which sheets of spindle cells replace small fascicular aggregates and nests of melanocytes.6,74
A recent study documented poor interobserver reproducibility among expert pathologists in the diagnosis of atypical CBN and so-called malignant blue nevus, highlighting the lack of uniformly accepted and applied criteria for the pathologic diagnosis of these lesions.99 Further studies preferably correlated with molecular data and long patient follow-up periods are required to determine the morphologic criteria that best predict biologic behavior in these lesions.
Lymph node involvement by CBN is rare.6,100 Nodal involvement often takes the form of subcapsular sinus and parenchymal deposits (Figs. 6A, B), in contrast to the predominantly capsular location of nodal nevus cell aggregates and DBN.26,74,100,101 Such deposits of CBN pose difficulties in distinction from melanoma, and the possibility that the lesion is a metastatic CBN-like melanoma cannot always be ruled out due to the relatively short follow-up period in some reported cases.102 Comparison with the histology of the primary cutaneous tumor (which is invariably present, Fig. 6C) may help in arriving at the correct diagnosis, and prevent excessive and inappropriate treatment.74 However, unequivocal distinction between nodal CBN and CBN-like melanoma is not always possible, and therefore in such cases, a guarded prognosis should be given.
Combined melanocytic nevi are composed of more than one nevus type in a single lesion. They may occur in both cutaneous and mucosal sites,10,74,103 and may be composed of any combination of common acquired nevi, blue nevus variants, or Spitz nevi. Blue nevi, particularly deep penetrating nevi, are common components,104–106 but DBN10,103,105 or CBN74,105 may also be present (Figs. 7A, C). We consider that other histopathologically similar tumors that have been reported under a variety of other terms including clonal nevus, inverted type A nevus, nevus with focal atypical epithelioid components, and atypical dermal nodule in benign melanocytic nevus may also represent examples of combined nevi.105,107 Barnhill and colleagues have proposed the term “nevus with phenotypic heterogeneity” for this group of lesions. Although this name is probably a more accurate reflection of the pathogenesis of these melanocytic tumors, the terminology has not been widely adopted, possibly because the term “phenotypic heterogeneity” may engender clinical concern about the nature of the lesion.
“Compound Blue Nevus”
Rare cases of compound blue nevus have been reported.108–110 The junctional component was reported to be composed of single dendritic melanocytes, a morphologic description that equally applies to normal junctional melanocytes. The dermal component comprised pigmented dendritic melanocytes arranged singly and in fascicles, similar to DBN. Melanophages were also present in the dermis. No significant cytologic atypia or mitotic activity should be observed.108–110 We have not seen a convincing example of this entity; upon review of cases that were diagnosed by others as compound blue nevus, we classified them as DPN and combined nevus.
Clinical Behavior of Blue Nevi
In general, the blue nevi described above behave in a benign fashion. Involvement of regional lymph nodes is rare, as has been discussed above. Very rare cases of persistence or recurrence of blue nevi [DBN, CBN, and combined nevi with blue nevus component(s)] have been reported, often, but not always, after incomplete excision.6,111,112 The recurrent lesions usually resemble the original tumor, although occasionally, they may exhibit degenerative (“ancient”) changes or atypical features (pleomorphism and mitotic activity), the latter raising concern for subtle malignancy.111 Persistent or recurrent blue nevi seem to follow a benign course, and the atypical and degenerative morphologic changes seen in some recurrent tumors were not associated with aggressive behavior in most cases. It has been suggested that these changes are likely related to the inflammatory response to the previous surgical procedure.111 However, as clinical recurrence of blue nevi may herald malignant transformation, careful clinical follow-up and histologic examination of the recurrent lesion is warranted.74,113,114
BLUE NEVUS-LIKE MELANOMA (SO-CALLED MALIGNANT BLUE NEVUS)
Malignant blue nevus is a term first coined by Allen and Spitz to describe blue nevus-like lesions which had resulted in metastasis and patient death in some cases.115 It has since been used by several authors to denote various entities: malignant change arising in a preexisting CBN,74,113,116,117 melanoma arising at the site of a (previously excised) blue nevus,113,118–120 melanoma with cytoarchitectural features resembling CBN but apparently arising de novo,121–123 or melanoma with an admixed residual benign CBN component.113,118,124–126
So-called malignant blue nevi comprise a rare group of melanocytic tumors, which in some cases are not easy to classify precisely as benign or malignant purely on the basis of the morphologic features of the primary tumor. Mones and Ackerman127 have published a comprehensive review of cases reported in the literature bearing these diagnoses, and are strongly critical of the use of such terms. These authors are firmly of the opinion that all such lesions should be categorized into “blue nevus,” “melanoma,” and “melanoma in association with a blue nevus.” Although their interpretation is largely based on a logical analysis of the literature, precise categorization of such lesions is not always possible, nor is it possible to reliably predict from histologic features of the primary tumor the biologic behavior of atypical melanocytic lesions showing some morphologic similarities to blue nevus or CBN. Nevertheless, we agree that the term malignant blue nevus is inadvisable, given the juxtaposition of the adjective “malignant” with the noun “nevus,” which connotes a benign lesion. It is far better, we believe, to term such lesions as “blue nevus-like melanoma (BNLM) or atypical blue nevus-like lesion of uncertain malignant potential,” depending on the degree of atypia and the degree of histologic certainty of the malignant potential of the lesion. If the latter term is used, the evidence in favor of a diagnosis of nevus and melanoma respectively should be discussed in the report and, whenever possible, a favored diagnosis proffered. Furthermore, in this situation, or whenever genuine doubt exists about the biologic potential of the lesion, it is probably appropriate to seek an opinion from one or more experienced colleagues. Rather than adding new diagnostic entities to the dermatopathologic lexicon, these terms indicate the difficulty in histologically classifying such lesions as benign or malignant, and reflect the uncertainty in prediction of their behavior. This allows communication of the level of concern about a given lesion to the clinician, facilitating the formulation of an appropriate management plan.128,129 In this difficult area, we believe that such an approach is of more value than to attempt to precisely categorize all such lesions as either benign (nevi) or melanoma when there is a significant possibility that such categorization may be inaccurate. Further study of these cases, correlated with prolonged clinical follow-up and preferably also with molecular data, may be helpful in refining diagnostic criteria for this uncommon but difficult and problematic group of tumors.
Most of the cases of BNLM are associated with CBN (either pure CBN or CBN in combination with other nevus types). Melanoma apparently arising in association with a pure DBN is very rare.122,130,131 Connelly and Smith113 proposed 2 criteria to enable distinction of BNLM from metastatic or nodular melanoma, namely the lack of a junctional component and the presence of a background benign blue nevus. Clearly, correlation with clinical details is also important if a diagnosis of metastatic melanoma is being considered, particularly to establish whether the patient has a known history of melanoma and whether there is evidence of metastatic disease elsewhere.
Genetic studies of small numbers of cases have suggested that aberrations commonly seen in melanomas (such as mutations in CDKN2A and alterations in chromosomes 10q, 1p, and 17) are not identified in BNLM, suggesting that the molecular pathogenesis of BNLMs is distinct from that of conventional melanoma.125 Further genetic studies are required to confirm these findings. A recent study reported the presence of frequent somatic mutations in the heterotrimeric G protein alpha-subunit, Guanine nucleotide binding protein (G protein), q polypeptide, in blue nevi (83%) and ocular melanoma of the uvea (46%).132 The mutations occurred exclusively in codon 209 in the Ras-like domain and resulted in constitutive activation, turning Guanine nucleotide binding protein (G protein), q polypeptide into a dominant acting oncogene. These findings provide molecular evidence of a histogenetic link between these tumors which, as we recognized many years ago, show morphologic similarities in a subset of cases.
BNLM is rare. They often occur in older individuals (often >45 y), are usually large (3-13 cm), and may show clinical evidence of a residual CBN. Many of the reported cases exhibit local invasion or widespread metastasis.116–118,121,123,124,133–136 The scalp is the commonest site of involvement, followed by the face, buttocks, and chest. Rarely BNLMs in other locations, such as the vulva,118 have also been reported.
Cases of BNLM reported in the literature have behaved very aggressively, with a majority exhibiting metastases leading to patient death.113,121,123,125,131,135,137–142 There are probably a number of factors contributing to this poor outcome, including delayed diagnosis and treatment of the malignant component, an overestimate due to difficulties in separating nonmetastasizing BNLM from atypical CBN, and reporting bias. However, metastasis or death may be delayed up to 19 years after the diagnosis.118,133 Reliable prediction of the behavior of BNLM based on histopathologic features has not always been successful, although some studies have suggested that Breslow thickness may be predictive of outcome.122 A recent comprehensive analysis of 23 patients with BNLM treated at the Melanoma Institute Australia (incorporating the Sydney Melanoma Unit), the largest series reported to date, found that clinical outcome was similar to that of conventional melanoma patients when matched for tumor thickness and other important prognostic factors.143
Pathologic Features and Differential Diagnosis
BNLM can generally be distinguished from CBN by the presence of a frankly malignant component (Figs. 8A, B).118 Histologically, BNLM is characterized by widespread necrosis in many cases (Figs. 8C, D),6,116,133,134,144 and palisading of cells around the areas of necrosis may be seen.133,134 However, necrosis is not a common finding in all series.122 Focal necrosis has been reported to occur rarely in otherwise typical CBN,74 although it is our opinion that, in the absence of prior biopsy or trauma, the presence of necrosis is very concerning for malignancy. Other criteria supportive of a diagnosis of BNLM include high mitotic rate (>2/mm2), abnormal mitotic figures, vascular invasion, excessive cell crowding, expansile growth and marked cytologic pleomorphism and atypia (Figs. 8D, E). Occasional cases of BNLM may, however, be associated with a low mitotic rate.113,118,121,122,135,136,138–142,145–147
Cutaneous metastases from melanoma may rarely mimic BNLM, and when they lack atypical cytologic features, they may mimic blue nevus. These lesions are composed of pigmented fusiform, dendritic and epithelioid melanocytes surrounding dermal collagen bundles. Occasional atypical epithelioid melanocytes, scattered mitotic figures and an associated perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate may be present, all representing subtle clues to the correct diagnosis. Nevertheless, correlation with the clinical features is critical to definitive diagnosis.148
“ATYPICAL” CELLULAR BLUE NEVUS
A rare variant of blue nevus with many morphologic features of CBN but with some additional atypical features (that in isolation would be evidence raising the possibility of melanoma) without clear cut evidence of malignancy, (ie, a lesion intermediate or indeterminate between typical CBN and melanoma) has been referred to as “atypical CBN” (ACBN),74,98,149 “locally aggressive,”144,150 “extensive,”151,152 or CBN-like melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential.153 ACBNs tend to occur in the buttock or sacral region of young or middle-aged adults. All lesions of ACBN reported so far have been solitary, predominantly dermal nodules, some extending into the superficial subcutis.74,98 Clinically, such lesions resemble CBN, but histologically, they contain worrisome features, such as asymmetry, hypercellular foci, focal cytologic atypia, and occasional mitoses (<2/mm2).74,149,153 Atypical mitotic figures are not seen.118 Elder and Murphy153 proposed diagnostic criteria for ACBN as CBN that display some, but not all, of the following features: (1) size >3 cm, (2) increased cellularity, (3) cellular pleomorphism, (4) increased mitotic activity, and (5) areas of necrosis. However, a recent study involving the assessment of a series of cellular blue melanocytic neoplasms by 14 experienced dermatopathologists showed that there is substantial disagreement among pathologists about the definitions and biologic nature of such tumors, in particular those thought to have atypical features (ACBN).99 The results highlight the lack of clear, consistent diagnostic criteria, resulting in poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of such lesions. Clearly, further study of this group of lesions correlated with clinical follow-up data (and molecular findings) is required to clarify the clinical significance of atypical morphologic features in CBN. In our view, it is likely that ACBN does not represent a distinct entity and may be composed of a mixture of CBN with atypical histologic features and a subtle CBN-like low grade form of melanoma. The recent suggestion that the latter should be referred to as melanocytoma (as a distinct intermediate entity in contrast to the traditional dichotomous diagnostic categorization of melanocytic tumors as either nevus or melanoma) is a proposal with some merit and worthy of further consideration and study. However, to prevent it becoming a “waste basket” category liable to expansion and inappropriate (over) usage, precise diagnostic criteria would need to be defined.
Some authors found that ACBNs tend to recur, and may acquire a more aggressive phenotype if incompletely excised,153 whereas other studies found no evidence of recurrence or metastasis in their cases.149 Until further data emerges, it therefore seems an appropriate course of action to regard such lesions as being of uncertain/indeterminate malignant potential and to treat them with complete resection, followed by close clinical follow-up for local recurrence or regional/distant spread.
The distinction of ACBN from melanoma can be difficult. High mitotic activity (>2/mm2), atypical mitotic figures, marked cytologic atypia, cell crowding, expansile growth, and necrosis favor melanoma,113,137 but it has been suggested that the finding of atypical mitotic figures seems to be the most helpful distinguishing feature.6 As described above, ACBN is distinguished from CBN by the presence of one, or occasionally more, of the following features: asymmetry, hypercellular foci, focal cytologic atypia, and occasional mitoses (<2/mm2).
Maize et al154 demonstrated that ACBN showed more chromosomal aberrations than unequivocally benign CBN (which showed none), but which are less frequent and fewer in number than unequivocally malignant lesions resembling blue nevi (BNLM) using comparative genomic hybridization. The small number of cases and the limited follow-up period in this study, however, did not permit prognostic stratification of the ambiguous cases (ACBN) based on their degree of chromosomal aberration.154 Nevertheless, these data may provide some molecular basis for the presence of the atypical morphologic features and, furthermore, evidence that the traditional dichotomous categorization of melanocytic tumors into benign and malignant may not always be appropriate (that is, that an intermediate/borderline category of melanocytic tumors (“melanocytomas”) or perhaps low grade forms of melanoma may exist.
Deep Penetrating Nevus, Epithelioid Blue Nevus, and Pigmented Epithelioid Melanocytoma
Deep Penetrating Nevus
The term “deep penetrating nevus” was coined by Seab et al155 in 1989 to describe a lesion with worrying histologic features but benign clinical behavior, which was often misdiagnosed as melanoma. In Seab et al's series, none of the lesions recurred or metastasized after a mean follow-up of 7 years. In our experience, DPN most commonly occurs as part of a combined nevus (ie, as part of a nevus composed of more than one nevus cell type).105,156
DPN usually presents as a solitary lesion, and rarely as multiple lesions.155,157 Patients with DPN are usually between 10 and 30 years of age when diagnosed (although they may occur at any age), with no significant sex predilection. The most common sites of involvement are the head, neck and shoulder, and less often trunk, upper arm, hip, and thigh. Most lesions are well-demarcated, darkly pigmented papules or nodules, usually <10 mm in size.155 Variable pigmentation is common, particularly in those lesions forming part of a combined nevus.
Histologically, DPNs are relatively symmetric and well-demarcated lesions extending to the deep reticular dermis and sometimes into subcutis, and often exhibit an inverted wedge-shaped silhouette (Fig. 9A). They are usually composed of nests and fascicles of predominantly ovoid epithelioid cells, which often contain cytoplasmic melanin pigment, the latter being more prominent in associated melanophages. Extension around and in association with skin adnexal structures or nerves is common (Fig. 9B). They usually exhibit some nuclear pleomorphism, but mitotic activity is low or absent. Cells with “smudged” nuclear hyperchromatism and intranuclear cytoplasmic invaginations (pseudoinclusions) are often present (Figs. 9C, D). DPNs are almost invariably positive for S-100 and HMB-45.91,155
Seab et al asserted that, although there is some overlap between the clinical and morphologic features of DPN with those of DBN, CBN, and Spitz nevus, DPN constitutes a relatively homogenous group with sufficiently distinctive architectural and cytologic features to permit distinction from these other lesions.155 We concur with this point of view. In contrast to DPN, DBN lacks junctional nests, exhibits a diffuse rather than a nested dermal component, is predominantly composed of more fusiform or dendritic cells and lacks nuclear pleomorphism. CBN lacks junctional nests and is composed of prominent nests of nonpigmented or scantily pigmented uniform ovoid to spindled cells, unlike DPN. Spitz nevi generally occur in younger patients and are often clinically nonpigmented.158,159 They show prominent junctional nests and epidermal hyperplasia, and are composed of epithelioid and spindle cells with vesicular nuclei.160 Superficial mitotic figures are not uncommon. Melanomas generally lack the circumscription, symmetry and wedge-shaped architecture seen in DPN. Additional features that favor melanoma include mitoses (>2/mm2), atypical mitotic figures, diffusely atypical melanocytes with coarsely granular chromatin and fine, dusty melanin pigment, solid growth pattern, stromal reaction, and an in situ melanoma component.155
Epithelioid Blue Nevus
EBN is a variant of blue nevus, first described in young patients in the setting of Carney complex (myxomas, endocrine overactivity, spotty skin pigmentation, and psammomatous melanotic schwannomas among other associations).62–64,161 EBN have also been reported as a sporadic condition in both children and adults.162 They tend to occur most often on the trunk and extremities,64,161,163–165 and very rarely in genital166 and oral167 mucosal locations.
EBN is composed of combinations of large epithelioid melanocytes with abundant cytoplasm, variable amounts of coarsely granular cytoplasmic melanin pigment and prominent nucleoli, sometimes associated with heavily pigmented spindle cell and dendritic cell components. In some epithelioid cells, the pigment is distributed evenly throughout the cytoplasm, but in others, the pigment is concentrated at the periphery of the cell, leading to a pigment-free perinuclear zone. The cells are interspersed between dermal collagen bundles. The large and pleomorphic nuclei in the epithelioid cells may contain occasional very prominent nucleoli (Fig. 10). Maturation of the lesional cells with depth is lacking and occasional mitotic figures (typically <1/50 high power fields) may be seen. Melanophages are readily identified.64,161,163–165 The tumor cells stain with S-100, HMB-45, Melan-A, and MiTF, as well as CD68.161,167 Additional (junctional or intradermal) melanocytic nevi are commonly associated with EBN, such lesions therefore representing combined melanocytic nevi.<!/HEADING><!/HEADING>161,165
DPN may display some features seen in EBN, such as pigmentation, wedge shape, presence of epithelioid and some spindled cells and common extension to subcutaneous fat. However, DPN is more common in the head and neck region than in the trunk and extremities. Nests and fascicles of cells seen in DPN are unusual in EBN. Nuclei in DPN tend to be irregular, nucleoli are not usually prominent, the nuclear chromatin is often smudged, and intranuclear pseudoinclusions are common; in contrast, the nuclei in EBN contain prominent nucleoli and the nuclear chromatin is clear.161 Like EBN, Spitz nevus occurs at a young age and may exhibit a dome shape. However unlike EBN, Spitz nevi are typically sparsely pigmented, are situated in the reticular dermis, contain cells arranged in nests, show cell “maturation” with dermal depth, exhibit epidermal hyperplasia, and nucleoli are only occasionally prominent; they are frequently negative for HMB-45.161,167
“Pigmented Epithelioid Melanocytoma”
“Pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma” (PEM) is a term coined by Zembowicz et al168 in 2004 to describe heavily pigmented epithelioid and spindled melanocytic tumors exhibiting histologic features similar to those seen in EBN. Similar tumors had previously been described under the rubric “animal-type melanoma” due to their morphologic similarities with heavily pigmented tumors in horses (equine melanotic disease).169–174 Subsequently, single cases of PEM have been reported,175 and Antony et al176 proposed the term “pigment-synthesizing melanoma” for similar lesions. Our experience of similar heavily pigmented melanocytic lesions confirms the overlapping morphologic features between EBN and animal-type melanoma.177,178 However, it is our view that a subgroup of EBN remains, distinct from PEM, that shows less cell density and less pigmentation which we continue to diagnose as EBN.
PEM occurs in patients over a wide age range, with a median age of 27 years. It is most often located on the extremities. Histologically, PEM is a heavily pigmented dermal melanocytic proliferation with infiltrative margins. The tumor may abut the epidermis or be separated from it by a grenz zone, and there may be associated epidermal hyperplasia (Figs. 10A, B). A junctional component is sometimes present and PEM is associated with a nevus in a minority of cases. The tumor is composed of a mixture of epithelioid and spindled melanocytes with heavy cytoplasmic pigmentation. The epithelioid cells range in size from medium-sized to large, and contain moderate to abundant cytoplasm. Nuclear atypia and nucleolar prominence is generally more pronounced in the large cells (Fig. 10C). The spindle cells are more prevalent at the periphery of the lesion and exhibit similar nuclear features to those seen in the epithelioid cells. Their cytoplasm, which is focally dendritic, is also heavily pigmented (Fig. 10D). Mitotic activity is low (0 to 3 mitotic figures/mm2) and tumor necrosis is uncommon. Numerous melanophages are often also present and lymphocytes are seen in occasional cases, usually at the periphery of the tumor.168,177–180
In Zembowicz et al's series,168 regional lymph node metastases occurred in 46% of cases and liver metastasis in 1 case. Nevertheless, the clinical course was found to be favorable, although there was only a relatively short follow-up period. The authors proposed that the term PEM be used provisionally to encompass entities previously described as epithelioid blue nevus and animal-type melanoma. Interestingly, many of the cases previously reported as animal-type melanoma in the literature showed a propensity for regional and distant metastasis, but only rarely resulted in death of the patients, even in lesions of considerable thickness.172–174 In contrast, the rate of regional lymph node metastasis in other series of PEM has been much lower.179 However, unlike the series reported by Zembowicz and colleagues, the latter study included few patients in whom a sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed and most nodal metastases were detected by clinical palpation.179
Some authors have questioned the need for the term “PEM” given that it subsumes other well-documented entities such as animal-type melanoma and at least some examples of EBN (as mentioned previously, we believe there remain examples of EBN that do not fulfill criteria for a diagnosis of PEM).181 However, the originators of the term suggest that it is justified, as animal-type melanoma and EBN cannot be distinguished histologically, nor can metastasizing and nonmetastasizing cases. Furthermore, PEM seems to exhibit distinct clinicopathologic features and clinical behavior, when contrasted with conventional melanoma. Moreover, a recent study analyzed mutations of the protein kinase A regulatory subunit type 1α (coded by the PRKAR1A gene), loss of heterozygosity at the gene locus (17q22 to 24) and immunohistochemistry for the protein product (R1alpha) in PEMs, a variety of nevi and melanomas.182 Mutations of the PRKAR1A gene are found in more than half of Carney complex patients. No mutations were found in PEMs, in nevi or in melanomas, but 17q22 to 24 loss of heterozygosity was much more common and extensive in PEMs than in nevi or melanomas. In contrast, immunohistochemical expression of R1α was absent in 82% of PEMs and in all Carney complex-associated EBNs, but was present in virtually all melanomas and melanocytic nevi. These findings provide molecular evidence in support of the proposal that PEM is a distinct melanocytic tumor. Until the nature of these tumors is resolved beyond doubt, we recommend complete local excision and careful clinical follow-up. In view of the apparently favorable prognosis of patients with PEM, the unknown clinical significance of sentinel lymph node metastases in PEM and the absence of conclusive evidence that sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by complete lymphadenectomy in those patients with metastases improves overall survival, the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with PEM is probably limited. Nevertheless, lymphoscintigraphy to identify the sites of sentinel lymph nodes (which can then be regularly carefully monitored by regular high resolution ultrasound) offers an alternative noninvasive strategy that enables growing metastases to be detected at an early stage and appropriate management to be instigated.
Is There a Relationship Between Dendritic and Cellular Blue Nevus, Epithelioid Blue Nevus, Deep Penetrating Nevus, Combined Nevus and PEM, and Spitz Nevus?
As highlighted by Groben et al, there is probably a spectrum of pigmented melanocyic tumors and occasional cases may show overlapping features and may be difficult to classify. In view of this, and the presence of occasional melanocytic nevi which show cellular heterogeneity but not clear cut evidence of 2 or more distinct nevus cell types, the proposal of Barnhill and colleagues to refer to some lesions as nevi with phenotypic heterogeneity has merit and is probably a more accurate description of the pathogenesis of the morphologic features. However, in our view, the proposal of Groben et al to classify some lesions as “epithelioid combined nevi” with various subtypes (Carney complex-like, “BLITZ”, DPN-like and mixed types) seems complex and does not reflect the documented cellular heterogeneity that occurs in the previously described subtypes of blue nevi.
In the final analysis, genetic studies of large numbers of cases may aid in refining the classification of these entities (some of which may not turn out to be entities in their own right) and relationships (if any) between them.
CUTANEOUS AND PILAR NEUROCRISTIC HAMARTOMA
Cutaneous neurocristic hamartoma (CNH) refers to very rare cutaneous tumors exhibiting divergent differentiation along nevomelanocytic, neural and pigmented dendritic cell lines. They may be congenital or acquired, and present as slow-growing multinodular plaques. Histologically, they are infiltrating multinodular tumors involving the dermis and subcutis and lacking a junctional component. The tumors comprise areas resembling DBN, CBN, EBN, neurofibroma, and schwannoma, and may infiltrate along nerves. Typically, these tumors exhibit low grade (but progressive) behavior and the clinical course is characterized by slow growth punctuated by numerous recurrences.183–185 Rare tumors may develop expansile nodular areas composed of epithelioid cells exhibiting cytologic atypia, mitotic activity and necrosis. Such tumors have led to metastasis and death and have been termed “malignant metastasizing neurocristic tumors.”186 Whether or not these represent unusual forms of melanoma arising in association with a blue nevus is open to debate.
Some heavily pigmented melanocytic lesions resembling so-called animal-type melanoma have been given the appellation “pilar neurocristic hamartoma” (PNH) due to the presence of perifollicular and perieccrine ductal arrangement of the melanocytes.142,187,188 PNH are heavily pigmented multinodular tumors resembling blue nevi with a predilection for involvement of the perifollicular adventitia. They grow slowly over many years, with some cases metastasizing decades after excision of the primary lesion.142,187,189
We remain doubtful that these lesions represent distinct entities and challenge the appropriateness of referring to them as hamartomas. We concur with the suggestion that both PNHs and CNHs may represent variants of blue nevus with peripheral nerve sheath differentiation,1 and a case of a dermal melanocytic proliferation exhibiting features of both PTBN and neurocristic hamartoma has been described.190 There seems to be some clinical and morphologic overlap between CNH, PNH, and PEM, although the precise relationship between these entities is unclear at present. The recently described paraganglioma-like dermal melanocytic tumor has some similar features to CBN and may represent another blue nevus variant or “melanocytoma.”191,192
Blue nevi exhibit a spectrum of appearances, with variation in parameters such as cellularity, cellular composition, degree of sclerosis, and pigmentation. Although such lesions are usually classified into one of the well-defined subtypes, in some cases displaying overlapping features, subclassification may not be precise. However, awareness of the clinical and histologic spectrum of blue nevi is important for their recognition and for their distinction from melanoma, particularly in the case of large blue nevi, CBN, and blue nevus variants exhibiting unusual or atypical morphologic features. In blue nevus-like tumors with some atypical features but without clear cut evidence of malignancy, it may not be possible in all cases to definitively predict the biological behavior by morphologic assessment of the primary tumor. In such cases, we recommend documenting in the pathology report the evidence in favor of (and against) a diagnosis of nevus or melanoma and providing a favored diagnosis whenever possible. It is probably appropriate in such difficult/problematic/borderline cases to seek further opinion from one or more experienced colleagues. Complete excision is probably mandatory (if clinically appropriate), however, the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of these patients remains uncertain. In the future, it is hoped that the use of molecular testing may allow more precise classification of melanocytic tumors and more accurate prediction of their biologic potential and clinical behavior.193
The authors thank their colleagues at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Melanoma Institute Australia (incorporating the Sydney Melanoma Unit) for ther support and assistance. The authors also thank the Melanoma Foundation of the University of Sydney, the Cancer Institute New South Wales, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for support.
1. Misago N. The relationship between melanocytes and peripheral nerve sheath cells (Part II): blue nevus with peripheral nerve sheath differentiation. Am J Dermatopathol. 2000;22:230–236.
2. Zembowicz A, Mihm MC. Dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations: an update. Histopathology. 2004;45:433–451.
3. Tieche M. Uber benigne Melanome (“Chromatophorome”) der Haut- “blaue Naevi”. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat. 1906;186:212–229.
4. Allen AC. A reorientation on the histogenesis and clinical significance of cutaneous nevi and melanomas. Cancer. 1949;12:28–56.
5. Lever WF. Histopathology of the Skin. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co; 1961:595–597.
6. Rodriguez HA, Ackerman LV. Cellular blue nevus. Clinicopathologic study of forty-five cases. Cancer. 1968;21:393–405.
7. Argenziano G, Zalaudek I, Ferrara G, et al. Proposal of a new classification system for melanocytic naevi. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:217–227.
8. Vidal S, Sanz A, Hernandez B, et al. Subungual blue naevus. Br J Dermatol. 1997;137:1023–1025.
9. Kim HS, Kim YJ, Kim JW, et al. Subungal blue nevus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21:271–272.
10. Crawford JB, Howes EL Jr, Char DH. Combined nevi of the conjunctiva. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;97:170–183; discussion 183–185.
11. Shields CL, Fasiuddin AF, Mashayekhi A, et al. Conjunctival nevi: clinical features and natural course in 410 consecutive patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:167–175.
12. Folberg R, Jakobiec FA, Bernardino VB, et al. Benign conjunctival melanocytic lesions. Clinicopathologic features. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:436–461.
13. Tucker SM, Linberg JV, Doshi HM. Conjunctival blue nevus associated with pyogenic granuloma. Can J Ophthalmol. 1994;29:95–96.
14. Hasse CD, Zoutendam GL, Gombas OF. Intraoral blue (Jadassohn-Tieche) nevus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1978;45:755–761.
15. Buchner A, Hansen LS. Pigmented nevi of the oral mucosa: a clinicopathologic study of 32 new cases and review of 75 cases from the literature. Part I. A clinicopathologic study of 32 new cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1979;48:131–142.
16. Buchner A, Hansen LS. Pigmented nevi of the oral mucosa: a clinicopathologic study of 32 new cases and review of 75 cases from the literature. Part II. Analysis of 107 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;49:55–62.
17. Lovas GL, Wysocki GP, Daley TD. The oral blue nevus: histogenetic implications of its ultrastructural features. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983;55:145–150.
18. Buchner A, Hansen LS. Pigmented nevi of the oral mucosa: a clinicopathologic study of 36 new cases and review of 155 cases from the literature. Part I: A clinicopathologic study of 36 new cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987;63:566–572.
19. Buchner A, Hansen LS. Pigmented nevi of the oral mucosa: a clinicopathologic study of 36 new cases and review of 155 cases from the literature. Part II: Analysis of 191 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987;63:676–682.
20. Buchner A, Leider AS, Merrell PW, et al. Melanocytic nevi of the oral mucosa: a clinicopathologic study of 130 cases from northern California. J Oral Pathol Med. 1990; 19:197–201.
21. Piana S, Asioli S. Blue nevus of the nasal mucosa. Virchows Archiv. 2005;446:342–343.
22. Chuang WY, Hao SP, Yeh CJ, et al. Blue nevi of the sinonasal mucosa: a report of two cases and review of the literature. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:371–372.
23. Aneiros J, O'Valle F, Garcia del Moral R, et al. Blue nevus of the maxillary sinus. An immunohistochemical and electron microscopic study. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 1989;43:163–167.
24. Ferrara G, Boscaino A, De Rosa G. Bronchial blue naevus. A previously unreported entity. Histopathology. 1995;26:581–583.
25. Lam KY, Law S, Chan GS. Esophageal blue nevus: an isolated endoscopic finding. Head and Neck. 2001;23:506–509.
26. Epstein JI, Erlandson RA, Rosen PP. Nodal blue nevi. A study of three cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1984;8:907–915.
27. Masci P, Ciardi A, Di Tondo U. Blue nevus of the lymph node capsule. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1984;10:596–598.
28. Lamovec J. Blue nevus of the lymph node capsule. Report of a new case with review of the literature. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81:367–372.
29. Tobon H, Murphy AI. Benign blue nevus of the vagina. Cancer. 1977;40:3174–3176.
30. Diaz De Molnar AM, Guralnick M, Ferenczy A. Blue nevus of the endocervix: report of two cases and ultrastructure. Gynecol Oncol. 1978;6:373–382.
31. Hagiwara T, Kaku T, Kobayashi H, et al. Coexisting vulvar malignant melanoma and blue nevus of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:519–520.
32. Zevallos-Giampietri EA, Barrionuevo C. Common blue nevus of the uterine cervix: case report and review. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2004;12:79–82.
33. Casadei GP, Grigolato P, Cabibbo E. Blue nevus of the endocervix. A study of five cases. Tumori. 1987;73:75–79.
34. Uehara T, Izumo T, Kishi K, et al. Stromal melanocytic foci (“blue nevus”) in step sections of the uterine cervix. Acta Pathol Jpn. 1991;41:751–756.
35. Kudo M, Nagayama T, Miura M, et al. Blue nevus of the uterine cervix. An ultrastructural study of two cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1983;107:87–90.
36. Matsumoto T, Shiraishi T, Yatani R, et al. Blue nevus of the uterine cervix. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;15:17–20.
37. Kaplan PA, Griffo MD, Diaz-Arias AA. Melanosis of the uterine cervix: a case report. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:867–870.
38. Shintaku M, Tsuta K, Matsumoto T. Blue nevus of the endometrium. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2003;22:294–296.
39. de Giorgi V, Massi D, Brunasso G, et al. Eruptive multiple blue nevi of the penis: a clinical dermoscopic pathologic case study. J Cutan Pathol. 2004;31:185–188.
40. Ro JY, Grignon DJ, Ayala AG, et al. Blue nevus and melanosis of the prostate. Electron Microscopic Immunohistochemical Studies. 1988;90:530–535.
41. Martinez Martinez CJ, Garcia Gonzalez R, Castaneda Casanova AL. Blue nevus of the prostate: report of two new cases with immunohistochemical and electron-microscopic studies. Eur Urol. 1992;22:339–342.
42. Nigogosyan G, Delapava S, Pickren JW, et al. Blue nevus of the prostate gland. Cancer. 1963;16:1097–1099.
43. Jao W, Fretzin DF, Christ ML, et al. Blue nevus of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol. 1971;91:187–191.
44. Carr S, See J, Wilkinson B, et al. Hypopigmented common blue nevus. J Cutan Pathol. 1997;24:494–498.
45. Bolognia JL, Glusac EJ. Hypopigmented common blue nevi. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:754–756.
46. Braun-Falco M, Hein R, Ring J. A painless nodule on the dorsum of the foot: hypopigmented blue nevus (HBN). Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1091–1096.
47. Bhawan J, Cao SL. Amelanotic blue nevus: a variant of blue nevus. Am J Dermatopathol. 1999;21:225–228.
48. Knoell KA, Nelson KC, Patterson JW. Familial multiple blue nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;39(2 Pt 2):322–325.
49. Rhodes AR, Silverman RA, Harrist TJ, et al. Mucocutaneous lentigines, cardiomucocutaneous myxomas, and multiple blue nevi: the “LAMB” syndrome. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10:72–82.
50. Atherton DJ, Pitcher DW, Wells RS, et al. A syndrome of various cutaneous pigmented lesions, myxoid neurofibromata and atrial myxoma: the NAME syndrome. Br J Dermatol. 1980;103:421–429.
51. Lycka B, Krywonis N, Hordinsky M. Abnormal nevoblast migration mimicking neurofibromatosis. Arch Dermatol. 1991;127:1702–1704.
52. Balloy BC, Mallet V, Bassile G, et al. Disseminated blue nevus: abnormal nevoblast migration or proliferation? Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:245–246.
53. Kasahara N, Kazama T, Sakamoto F, et al. Acquired multiple blue naevi scattered over the whole body. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144:440–442.
54. Krause MH, Bonnekoh B, Weisshaar E, et al. Coincidence of multiple, disseminated, tardive-eruptive blue nevi with cutis marmorata teleangiectatica congenita. Dermatology. 2000;200:134–138.
55. Suchniak JM, Griego RD, Rudolph AH, et al. Acquired multiple blue nevi on an extremity. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33:1051–1052.
56. Shenfield HT, Maize JC. Multiple and agminated blue nevi. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1980;6:725–728.
57. Velez A, del-Rio E, Martin-de-Hijas C, et al. Agminated blue nevi: case report and review of the literature. Dermatology. 1993;186:144–148.
58. Pizzichetta MA, Soyer HP, Massone C, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic features of agminated blue nevus. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:1225–1226.
59. Hendricks WM. Eruptive blue nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1981;4:50–53.
60. Bart BJ. Acquired linear blue nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;36(2 Pt 1):268–269.
61. Bondi EE, Elder D, Guerry Dt, et al. Target blue nevus. Arch Dermatol. 1983;119:919–920.
62. Carney JA. The Carney complex (myxomas, spotty pigmentation, endocrine overactivity, and schwannomas). Dermatol Clin. 1995;13:19–26.
63. Carney JA. Carney complex: the complex of myxomas, spotty pigmentation, endocrine overactivity, and schwannomas. Semin Dermatol. 1995;14:90–98.
64. Carney JA, Stratakis CA. Epithelioid blue nevus and psammomatous melanotic schwannoma: the unusual pigmented skin tumors of the Carney complex. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1998;15:216–224.
65. Kang DS, Chung KY. Common blue naevus with satellite lesions: possible perivascular dissemination resulting in a clinical resemblance to malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 1999;141:922–925.
66. del Rio E, Vazquez Veiga HA, Suarez Penaranda JM. Blue nevus with satellitosis mimicking malignant melanoma. Cutis. 2000;65:301–302.
67. Sahin MT, Demir MA, Yoleri L, et al. Blue naevus with satellitosis mimicking malignant melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:570–573.
68. Pichardo RO, Lu D, Sangueza OP, et al. What is your diagnosis? Desmoplastic melanocytic nevus. Am J Dermatopathol. 2002;24:506–507.
69. Li LX, Scolyer RA, Ka VS, et al. Pathologic review of negative sentinel lymph nodes in melanoma patients with regional recurrence: a clinicopathologic study of 1152 patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1197–1202.
70. Scolyer RA, Murali R, McCarthy SW, et al. Pathologic examination of sentinel lymph nodes from melanoma patients. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2008;25:100–111.
71. Murali R, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: aspects of pathologic assessment. Future Oncol. 2008;4:535–551.
72. McCarthy SW, Scolyer RA, Palmer AA. Desmoplastic melanoma: a diagnostic trap for the unwary. Pathology. 2004;36:445–451.
73. McCarthy SW, Crotty KA, Scolyer RA. Desmoplastic melanoma and desmoplastic neurotropic melanoma. In: LeBoit PE, Burg G, Weedon D, et al, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Skin Tumours. Lyon: IARC Press; 2006:76–78.
74. Temple-Camp CR, Saxe N, King H. Benign and malignant cellular blue nevus. A clinicopathological study of 30 cases. Am J Dermatopathol. 1988;10:289–296.
75. Demirci H, Shields CL, Shields JA, et al. Malignant melanoma arising from unusual conjunctival blue nevus. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1581–1584.
76. Smith TR, Brockhurst RJ. Cellular blue nevus of the sclera. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976;94:618–620.
77. Causeret AS, Skowron F, Viallard AM, et al. Subungual blue nevus. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:310–312.
78. Botev IN. Giant congenital cellular blue naevus of the scalp and cranium. Br J Plast Surg. 1998;51:410–411.
79. Madaree A, Ramdial PK, Du Trevou M. Giant congenital naevus of the scalp and cranium: case report and review of the literature. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50:20–25.
80. Fuchs F, Guillot E, Salama S, et al. Giant congenital scalp blue nevus, a neonatal case report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;132:243–244.
81. Fistarol SK, Itin PH. Plaque-type blue nevus of the oral cavity. Dermatology. 2005;211:224–233.
82. Pittman JL, Fisher BK. Plaque-type blue nevus. Arch Dermatol. 1976;112:1127–1128.
83. Heymann WR, Yablonsky TM. Congenital appearance of plaque-type blue nevi. Arch Dermatol. 1991;127:587.
84. Busam KJ, Woodruff JM, Erlandson RA, et al. Large plaque-type blue nevus with subcutaneous cellular nodules. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:92–99.
85. Algermissen B, Toppe F, Henz BM, et al. Hypertrichotic plaque-type blue naevus—a novel type of dermal melanocytosis: report of an unusual case. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 2002;82:61–62.
86. Park YM, Kang H, Cho BK. Plaque-type blue nevus combined with nevus spilus and smooth muscle hyperplasia. Int J Dermatol. 1999;38:775–777.
87. Michal M, Kerekes Z, Kinkor Z, et al. Desmoplastic cellular blue nevi. Am J Dermatopathol. 1995;17:230–235.
88. Zembowicz A, Granter SR, McKee PH, et al. Amelanotic cellular blue nevus: a hypopigmented variant of the cellular blue nevus: clinicopathologic analysis of 20 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1493–1500.
89. Perez MT, Suster S. Balloon cell change in cellular blue nevus. Am J Dermatopathol. 1999;21:181–184.
90. Biernat W, Kordek R, Wozniak L. Cellular blue nevi with myxoid change—diagnostic difficulties and the review of the literature. Pol J Pathol. 1995;46:83–86.
91. Skelton HG III, Smith KJ, Barrett TL, et al. HMB-45 staining in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions. A reflection of cellular activation. Am J Dermatopathol.1991;13:543–50.
92. Wood WS, Tron VA. Analysis of HMB-45 immunoreactivity in common and cellular blue nevi. J Cutan Pathol. 1991;18:261–263.
93. Urso C, Tinacci G. Angiomatoid cellular blue nevus: a variant of blue nevus with an angioma-like appearance. J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:385–387.
94. Kazakov DV, Michal M. Melanocytic “ball-in-mitts” and “microalveolar structures” and their role in the development of cellular blue nevi. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2007;11:160–175.
95. Busam KJ, Barnhill RL. Dermal melanocytoses, blue nevi, and related conditions. In: Barnhill RL, Piepkorn M, Busam KJ, eds. Pathology of Melanocytic Nevi and Malignant Melanoma. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004:199–222.
96. Aloi F, Pich A, Pippione M. Malignant cellular blue nevus: a clinicopathological study of 6 cases. Dermatology. 1996;192:36–40.
97. Bittencourt AL, Monteiro DA, De Pretto OJ. Infiltrating giant cellular blue naevus. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:82–84.
98. Avidor I, Kessler E. “Atypical” blue nevus—a benign variant of cellular blue nevus. Presentation of three cases. Dermatologica. 1977;154:39–44.
99. Barnhill RL, Argenyi Z, Berwick M, et al. Atypical cellular blue nevi (cellular blue nevi with atypical features): lack of consensus for diagnosis and distinction from cellular blue nevi and malignant melanoma (“malignant blue nevus”). Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:36–44.
100. Lambert WC, Brodkin RH. Nodal and subcutaneous cellular blue nevi. A pseudometastasizing pseudomelanoma. Arch Dermatol. 1984;120:367–370.
101. Ridolfi RL, Rosen PP, Thaler H. Nevus cell aggregates associated with lymph nodes: estimated frequency and clinical significance. Cancer. 1977;39:164–171.
102. Bortolani A, Barisoni D, Scomazzoni G. Benign “metastatic” cellular blue nevus. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;33:426–431.
103. Ficarra G, Hansen LS, Engebretsen S, et al. Combined nevi of the oral mucosa. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987;63:196–201.
104. McCarthy SW, Scolyer RA. Melanocytic lesions of the face: diagnostic pitfalls. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004;33(4 suppl):3–14.
105. Scolyer RA, Zhuang L, Palmer AA, et al. Combined naevus: a benign lesion frequently misdiagnosed both clinically and pathologically as melanoma. Pathology. 2004;36:419–427.
106. Scolyer RA, Thompson JF, Stretch JR, et al. Pathology of melanocytic lesions: new, controversial, and clinically important issues. J Surg Oncol. 2004;86:200–211.
107. Murali R, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF, et al. Melanocytic nevus with focal atypical epithelioid components (clonal nevus) is a combined nevus. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56:889–890.
108. Kamino H, Tam ST. Compound blue nevus: a variant of blue nevus with an additional junctional dendritic component. A clinical, histopathologic, and immunohistochemical study of six cases. Arch Dermatol. 1990;126:1330–1333.
109. Carrera C, Ferrer B, Mascaro JM Jr, et al. Compound blue naevus: a potential simulator of melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155:207–208.
110. Ferrara G, Argenziano G, Zgavec B, et al. “Compound blue nevus”: a reappraisal of “superficial blue nevus with prominent intraepidermal dendritic melanocytes” with emphasis on dermoscopic and histopathologic features. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:85–89.
111. Harvell JD, White WL. Persistent and recurrent blue nevi. Am J Dermatopathol. 1999;21:506–517.
112. Shih L, Hawkins DB. Recurrent postauricular blue nevus with lymph node involvement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1987;97:491–494.
113. Connelly J, Smith JL Jr. Malignant blue nevus. Cancer. 1991;67:2653–2657.
114. Gonzalez-Campora R, Galera-Davidson H, Vazquez-Ramirez FJ, et al. Blue nevus: classical types and new related entities. A differential diagnostic review. Pathol Res Pract. 1994;190:627–635.
115. Allen AC, Spitz S. Malignant melanoma; a clinicopathological analysis of the criteria for diagnosis and prognosis. Cancer. 1953;6:1–45.
116. Speakman JS, Phillips MJ. Cellular and malignant blue nevus complicating oculodermal melanosis (nevus of Ota syndrome). Can J Ophthalmol. 1973;8:539–547.
117. Merkow LP, Burt RC, Hayeslip DW, et al. A cellular and malignant blue nevus: a light and electron microscopic study. Cancer. 1969;24:888–896.
118. Spatz A, Zimmermann U, Bachollet B, et al. Malignant blue nevus of the vulva with late ovarian metastasis. Am J Dermatopathol. 1998;20:408–412.
119. Pozo L, Diaz-Cano SJ. Malignant deep sclerosing blue naevus presenting as a subcutaneous soft tissue mass. Br J Dermatol. 2004;151:508–511.
120. Boni R, Panizzon R, Huch Boni RA, et al. Malignant blue naevus with distant subcutaneous metastasis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1996;21:427–430.
121. Mishima Y. Cellular blue nevus. Melanogenic activity and malignant transformation. Arch Dermatol. 1970;101:104–110.
122. Granter SR, McKee PH, Calonje E, et al. Melanoma associated with blue nevus and melanoma mimicking cellular blue nevus: a clinicopathologic study of 10 cases on the spectrum of so-called “malignant blue nevus”. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:316–323.
123. Kato N, Tamura A, Yamanaka Y, et al. Malignant blue nevus: case report of a Japanese man with a distant cutaneous metastasis. Am J Dermatopathol. 2007;29:88–91.
124. Reiss RF, Gray GF Jr. Malignant blue nevus. Occurrence with aggressive behavior. N Y State J Med. 1975;75:1749–1751.
125. Ariyanayagam-Baksh SM, Baksh FK, Finkelstein SD, et al. Malignant blue nevus: a case report and molecular analysis. Am J Dermatopathol. 2003;25:21–27.
126. Schneider S, Bartels CG, Maza S, et al. Detection of micrometastasis in a sentinel lymph node of a patient with malignant blue nevus: a case report. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:1089–1092.
127. Mones JM, Ackerman AB. “Atypical” blue nevus, “malignant” blue nevus, and “metastasizing” blue nevus: a critique in historical perspective of three concepts flawed fatally. Am J Dermatopathol. 2004;26:407–430.
128. Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. Cooperation between surgical oncologists and pathologists: a key element of multidisciplinary care for patients with cancer. Pathology. 2004;36:496–503.
129. Scolyer RA, Thompson JF, Stretch JR, et al. Collaboration between clinicians and pathologists: a necessity for the optimal management of melanoma patients. Cancer Forum. 2005;29:76–81.
130. Modly C, Wood C, Horn T. Metastatic malignant melanoma arising from a common blue nevus in a patient with subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Dermatologica. 1989;178:171–175.
131. Moshaver A, Puttagunta L, Seikaly H. Malignant blue nevus of the parotid gland: a case report. Head Neck. 2006;28:960–962.
132. Van Raamsdonk CD, Bezrookove V, Green G, et al. Frequent somatic mutations of GNAQ in uveal melanoma and blue naevi. Nature. 2009;457:599–602.
133. Kwittken J, Negri L. Malignant blue nevus. Case report of a Negro woman. Arch Dermatol. 1966;94:64–69.
134. Hernandez FJ. Malignant blue nevus. A light and electron microscopic study. Arch Dermatol. 1973;107:741–744.
135. Kuhn A, Groth W, Gartmann H, et al. Malignant blue nevus with metastases to the lung. Am J Dermatopathol. 1988;10:436–441.
136. Boi S, Barbareschi M, Cristofolini M. Malignant cellular blue nevus with true nodal metastases. Pathologica. 1989;81:345–352.
137. Barnhill RL, Mihm MC Jr. The histopathology of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1993;10:47–75.
138. Goldenhersh MA, Savin RC, Barnhill RL, et al. Malignant blue nevus. Case report and literature review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1988;19:712–722.
139. Shallman RW, Hoehn JL, Lawton BR, et al. Malignant cellular blue nevus: unusual case of a rare tumor. Wisconsin Med J. 1988;87:16–18.
140. English JC III, McCollough ML, Grabski WJ. A pigmented scalp nodule: malignant blue nevus. Cutis. 1996;58:40–42.
141. Mehregan DA, Gibson LE, Mehregan AH. Malignant blue nevus: a report of eight cases. J Dermatol Sci. 1992;4:185–192.
142. Pathy AL, Helm TN, Elston D, et al. Malignant melanoma arising in a blue nevus with features of pilar neurocristic hamartoma. J Cutan Pathol. 1993;20:459–464.
143. Martin RCW, Murali R, Scolyer RA, et al. So-called “malignant blue nevus” -a clinico-pathologic study of 23 cases. Cancer. 2009;115:2949–2955.
144. Silverberg GD, Kadin ME, Dorfman RF, et al. Invasion of the brain by a cellular blue nevus of the scalp. A case report with light and electron microscopic studies. Cancer. 1971;27:349–355.
145. Rubinstein N, Kopolovic J, Wexler MR, et al. Malignant blue nevus. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1985;11:921–923.
146. Boi S, Barbareschi M, Vigl E, et al. Malignant blue nevus. Report of four new cases and review of the literature. Histol Histopathol. 1991;6:427–434.
147. Ginzburg A, Hodak E, Sandbank M. Malignant blue nevus. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1328;12:1252.
148. Busam KJ. Metastatic melanoma to the skin simulating blue nevus. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:276–282.
149. Tran TA, Carlson JA, Basaca PC, et al. Cellular blue nevus with atypia (atypical cellular blue nevus): a clinicopathologic study of nine cases. J Cutan Pathol. 1998;25:252–258.
150. Leopold JG, Richards DB. Cellular blue naevi. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1967;94:247–255.
151. Upshaw BY, Ghormley RK, Montgomery H. Extensive blue nevus of Jadassohn-Tieche. Report of a case. Surgery. 1947;22:761–765.
152. Sterchi JM, Muss HB, Weidner N. Cellular blue nevus simulating metastatic melanoma: report of an unusually large lesion associated with nevus-cell aggregates in regional lymph nodes. J Surg Oncol. 1987;36:71–75.
153. Elder DE, Murphy GF. Malignant tumors (melanomas and related lesions). In: Rosai J, ed. Atlas of Tumor Pathology: Melanocytic Tumors of the Skin. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1991:177–185.
154. Maize JC Jr, McCalmont TH, Carlson JA, et al. Genomic analysis of blue nevi and related dermal melanocytic proliferations. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1214–1220.
155. Seab JA Jr, Graham JH, Helwig EB. Deep penetrating nevus. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989;13:39–44.
156. Scolyer RA, Murali R, McCarthy SW. Combined melanocytic lesion with a predominant component of atypical deep penetrating nevus associated with nodal metastases. In: Zembowicz A, Flotte TJ, Mihm MC Jr, et al, eds. Cases in Dermatopathology: Common Problems in Diagnosis of Pigmented Lesions. Brisbane: Knowledge Books and Software; 2007:105–123.
157. Hassan AS, Schulte KW, Ruzicka T, et al. Linear arrangement of multiple deep penetrating nevi: report of first case and review of literature. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139:1608–1610.
158. Dahlstrom JE, Scolyer RA, Thompson JF, et al. Spitz naevus: diagnostic problems and their management implications. Pathology. 2004;36:452–457.
159. Murali R, Sharma RN, Thompson JF, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in histologically ambiguous melanocytic tumors with spitzoid features (so-called atypical spitzoid tumors). Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:302–309.
160. Crotty KA, Scolyer RA, Li L, et al. Spitz naevus versus Spitzoid melanoma: when and how can they be distinguished? Pathology. 2002;34:6–12.
161. Carney JA, Ferreiro JA. The epithelioid blue nevus. A multicentric familial tumor with important associations, including cardiac myxoma and psammomatous melanotic schwannoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:259–272.
162. Iglesias C, Torrelo A, Colmenero I, et al. Isolated multiple congenital epithelioid blue naevus. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:391–393.
163. O'Grady TC, Barr RJ, Billman G, et al. Epithelioid blue nevus occurring in children with no evidence of Carney complex. Am J Dermatopathol. 1999;21:483–486.
164. Moreno C, Requena L, Kutzner H, et al. Epithelioid blue nevus: a rare variant of blue nevus not always associated with the Carney complex. J Cutan Pathol. 2000;27:218–223.
165. Groben PA, Harvell JD, White WL. Epithelioid blue nevus: neoplasm Sui generis or variation on a theme? Am J Dermatopathol. 2000;22:473–488.
166. Izquierdo MJ, Pastor MA, Carrasco L, et al. Epithelioid blue naevus of the genital mucosa: report of four cases. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:496–501.
167. Pinto A, Raghavendra S, Lee R, et al. Epithelioid blue nevus of the oral mucosa: a rare histologic variant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003;96:429–436.
168. Zembowicz A, Carney JA, Mihm MC. Pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma: a low-grade melanocytic tumor with metastatic potential indistinguishable from animal-type melanoma and epithelioid blue nevus. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:31–40.
169. Dick W. Melanosis in men and horses. Lancet. 1832;192.
170. Lerner AB, Cage GW. Melanomas in horses. Yale J Biol Med. 1973;46:646–649.
171. Montes LF, Vaughan JT, Ramer G. Equine melanoma. J Cutan Pathol. 1979;6:234–235.
172. Levene A. Disseminated dermal melanocytosis terminating in melanoma. A human condition resembling equine melanotic disease. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:197–205.
173. Crowson AN, Magro CM, Mihm MC Jr. Malignant melanoma with prominent pigment synthesis: “animal type” melanoma—a clinical and histological study of six cases with a consideration of other melanocytic neoplasms with prominent pigment synthesis. Hum Pathol. 1999;30:543–550.
174. Requena L, de la Cruz A, Moreno C, et al. Animal type melanoma: a report of a case with balloon-cell change and sentinel lymph node metastasis. Am J Dermatopathol. 2001;23:341–346.
175. Ward JR, Brady SP, Tada H, et al. Pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45:1403–1405.
176. Antony FC, Sanclemente G, Shaikh H, et al. Pigment synthesizing melanoma (so-called animal type melanoma): a clinicopathological study of 14 cases of a poorly known distinctive variant of melanoma. Histopathology. 2006;48:754–762.
177. Scolyer RA. Heavily pigmented melanocytic lesions: are they all malignant? 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society of Dermatopathology. Sydney, Australia: 2002.
178. McCarthy SW. Recent progress in malignant melanomas. Case 9 “animal-type” or “melanophagic” naevus. 23rd International Congress of the International Academy of Pathology. Nagoya, Japan: 2000.
179. Scolyer RA, Thompson JF, Warnke K, et al. Pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1114–1116.
180. Howard B, Ragsdale B, Lundquist K. Pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma: two case reports. Dermatol Online J. 2005;11:1.
181. White S, Chen S. What is “pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma?” Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1118; author reply 1118–1119.
182. Zembowicz A, Knoepp SM, Bei T, et al. Loss of expression of protein kinase a regulatory subunit 1alpha in pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma but not in melanoma or other melanocytic lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:1764–1775.
183. Mezebish D, Smith K, Williams J, et al. Neurocristic cutaneous hamartoma: a distinctive dermal melanocytosis with an unknown malignant potential. Mod Pathol. 1998;11:573–578.
184. Smith KJ, Mezebish D, Williams J, et al. The spectrum of neurocristic cutaneous hamartoma: clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of three cases. Ann Diagn Pathol. 1998;2:213–223.
185. Karamitopoulou-Diamantis E, Paredes B, Vajtai I. Cutaneous neurocristic hamartoma with blue naevus-like features and plexiform dermal hyperneury. Histopathology. 2006;49:326–328.
186. Pearson JP, Weiss SW, Headington JT. Cutaneous malignant melanotic neurocristic tumors arising in neurocristic hamartomas. A melanocytic tumor morphologically and biologically distinct from common melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:665–677.
187. Tuthill RJ, Clark WH Jr, Levene A. Pilar neurocristic hamartoma: its relationship to blue nevus and equine melanotic disease. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118:592–596.
188. Crowson AN, Magro CH, Clark WH. Pilar neurocristic hamartoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;34:715.
189. Kikuchi I, Inoue S, Taketomi I, et al. Two cases of nevus fuscocaeruleus with pain, including a case of pilar neurocristic hamartoma. J Dermatol. 1983;10:275–280.
190. Bevona C, Tannous Z, Tsao H. Dermal melanocytic proliferation with features of a plaque-type blue nevus and neurocristic hamartoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:924–929.
191. Deyrup AT, Althof P, Zhou M, et al. Paraganglioma-like dermal melanocytic tumor: a unique entity distinct from cellular blue nevus, clear cell sarcoma, and cutaneous melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1579–1586.
192. Sarma DP, Teruya B, Wang B. Paraganglioma-like dermal melanocytic tumor: a case report. Cases J. 2008;1:48.
193. Morey AL, Murali R, McCarthy SW, et al. Diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic tumours by four-colour fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Pathology. 2009;41:383–387.
Keywords:© 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
animal-type melanoma; blue nevus; cellular blue nevus; clonal nevus; combined nevus; dendritic blue nevus; deep penetrating nevus; dermal melanocytoses; diagnosis; epithelioid blue nevus; malignant blue nevus; melanoma; nevus; pathology; pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma; pigment synthesizing melanoma