Does Melanoma Behave Differently in Younger Children Than in Adults? A Retrospective Study of 33 Cases of Childhood Melanoma From a Single Institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether childhood melanoma presents any peculiar clinical features or differences in prognosis with respect to adults, we retrospectively analyzed the data from 33 patients who were up to 14 years of age and treated for cutaneous melanoma at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, over a 25-year period. METHODS: Primary lesions were amelanotic in half of the cases and raised in 73%. Lower extremities were the most common primary sites. Histologically, 9 cases were classified as nodular type, and median thickness was 2.5 mm. Nine children had nodal involvement at diagnosis, 2 in-transit metastases, and 1 distant spread. Surgery was the mainstay of treatment; 9 patients underwent lymph node dissection, 3 received chemotherapy, and 2 received radiotherapy. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 122 months, 5-year event-free survival and overall survival were 60% and 70%, respectively. Age seemed to correlate with survival, event-free survival being 90% in children under 10 and 47% in older patients, although the initial microstaging seemed worse in the former. CONCLUSION: By comparison with adult cases, childhood melanoma can have a higher percentage of atypical clinical features (amelanotic and raised lesions), nodular histotype, and thick lesions. Although we have no data to support any suggestion of biological differences between young children and adolescents or adults, our findings give the impression that melanoma behaves differently in the younger age group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".