Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The diagnosis and management of the Spitz nevus in the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Systematic Reviews20176:81

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0477-8

Received: 27 November 2016

Accepted: 7 April 2017

Published: 13 April 2017

Abstract

Background

Spitz nevi are uncommon melanocytic neoplasms found in children. Historically, the diagnosis and management of these tumors has lacked consensus among oncologists, pathologists, plastic surgeons, and dermatologists. Once interpreted and treated as a “juvenile melanoma”, many have argued for the benignancy of such tumors in certain patient age groups, encouraging a conservative approach. The lack of consensus surrounding the diagnosis and perceived malignant potential of these tumors has led physicians to approach them on a case-by-case basis and institutional protocols. To date, no evidence-based management guideline exists. The objective of this systematic review is to both collect and appraise the evidence on the diagnosis and management of these tumors.

Methods

A comprehensive electronic literature search will be conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2016. Our search involved collaborating with a healthcare librarian to create a strategy for the OVID/MEDLINE databases. A search of electronic databases for oncology, pathology, plastic surgery, and dermatology abstracts will be performed. Key search terms will include, among several others, “Spitz nevi,” “Spitzoid melanoma,” “juvenile tumor,” and “pediatric”. The language of publication will be restricted to English and French. Wherever data allows, meta-analyses will be used to assess differences between Spitz nevi and the tumor of comparison. Additionally, data extraction and summarization using tables will be performed. This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034045).

Conclusions

This review will systematically and comprehensively review diagnostic and management practices associated with the Spitz nevus. This overview of current literature will hopefully provide the foundation for future standardization of clinical practice.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016034045

Keywords

Spitz nevusJuvenile melanomaDiagnosis and management

Background

Spitz nevi are uncommon melanocytic neoplasms of epithelioid or spindled cells that are found in children [1]. Once treated as a “juvenile melanoma” with malignant potential, these tumors possess a spectrum of clinical and histopathologic presentation that has argued for benignancy [2].

Historically, the diagnosis and management of Spitz nevi has been fraught with confusion [3]. The lack of consensus surrounding the clinical presentation, histopathologic diagnosis, and perceived biologic potential of these tumors has led plastic surgeons, dermatologists, and pathologists alike to approach these tumors on a case-by-case basis. To date, there is no algorithmic approach for either the diagnosis or the management of these tumors [4, 5].

The diagnosis of these tumors is commonly made based on a constellation of clinical and histopathologic features. Spitz nevi are classified as typical or atypical, and some use age as a determinant factor for diagnosis and prognosis. Clinically, Spitz nevi are solitary, well-circumscribed papules/nodules located on the face, upper/lower limb, trunk, or genitalia. The color tends to vary from nonpigmented, red/pink to brown pigmentation. These tumors typically occur in young patients and tend to have a rapid growth phase followed by a static phase. Approximately 50% of cases occur under the age of 10, and approximately 70% are diagnosed in the first two decades of life [6]. They can arise spontaneously or may develop with a preexisting melanocytic nevus. From an epidemiologic standpoint, Spitz nevi are most frequently found in fair-skinned individuals and both sexes are equally affected.

The so-called “atypical Spitz nevus” is a melanocytic proliferation with histopathologic features between a typical Spitz nevus and a Spitzoid melanoma and is associated with an uncertain malignant potential. Few studies have described the dermoscopic features of these tumors [7]. A recent multicenter trial of atypical Spitz nevi documented multicomponent and non-specific dermoscopic patterns and emphasized that these tumors could present in typical spitzoid patterns with amelanotic and hypomelanotic nodules [8].

Pathologic features of Spitz nevi include well-circumscribed borders, spindled or epithelioid cells, giant nevus cells, uniform nuclear and nucleolar enlargement, and maturation of cells deep within the tumor [9]. More concerning features of malignancy potential are present in an atypical Spitz nevus and include numerous and atypical mitoses, marginal mitoses, lack of Kamino bodies, ulceration, lack of maturation, expansile growth pattern, and diffuse p16 negativity [911].

There exists a spectrum in both interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary treatment protocols, which range from monitoring, shave biopsy, punch biopsy, and elliptical excision. An elegant study by Metzger et al. in 2013 illustrated contrasting approaches between plastic surgeons and dermatologists [12]. It also demonstrated that dermatologists were managing Spitz nevi in children on a case-by-case basis and were not adhering to their existing guidelines.

The primary objective of this systematic review is to collect and appraise existing literature on Spitz nevi with the intention of informing future diagnostic and management guidelines. Particular emphasis will be placed on the atypical Spitz nevus subgroup.

To ensure scientific rigor, this systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034045), and was adherent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P), which can be found in an additional file (Additional file 2).

Methods

Search strategy

A comprehensive electronic literature search will be conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2016. Our search will involve collaborating with a healthcare librarian to create a strategy for the OVID/MEDLINE databases. We will do a preliminary scan of oncology, pathology, dermatology, and plastic surgery conference abstracts to determine if a full search of the gray literature is necessary. Key search terms will include, among several others, “Spitz nevi,” “Spitzoid melanoma,” “juvenile tumor,” and “pediatric” (see Additional file 1 for full list). The language of publication will be restricted to the English and French language.

Screening

We will upload the search results and de-duplicate them using the latest EndNote software. Titles and abstracts will go through a level 1 screening by two independent reviewers based on the inclusion criteria, which can be found in full detail in an additional file (Additional file 3). The selected articles will then go through a level 2 screening by both reviewers by reading the full articles.

Eligibility criteria

Data on patients 18 years and younger with a clinical diagnosis of Spitz nevi will be included in the study. English and French language studies only will be included. Studies must discuss whether nevi were monitored, and/or biopsied, and/or excised. We will evaluate the monitoring protocols, the length of time to follow-up, and the timing of subsequent interventions. We will also document the use of dermoscopy and any other specialized evaluation techniques that do not require excision or biopsy. When the tumors of interest are found to be partially biopsied, we will record where possible the method of biopsy (shave biopsy, punch biopsy, incisional biopsy). When the tumor of interest is removed with the intent of complete removal, we will record where possible the method of removal (shave, punch, excision) as well as the margins and the incidence of recurrence.

Data extraction and bias assessment

This review will be addressing a number of details surrounding the Spitz nevus; therefore, a broad scope of information will be collected from each study. A list of anticipated items is summarized in Table 1. The PRISMA statement will guide the reporting of our findings. The PRISMA-P checklist is available as an additional file (Additional file 2). The subpopulation will be under 12 years of age and 12 to 18 years old. Gender will be compared to search for a predilection of the disease for male or female. For relevant studies, bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias [13] and decisions on exclusion or inclusion may rest on the determined level of bias of a study. Systematic reviews will be assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and will be presented in a table [14]. Non-randomized comparative trials will be assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) [15].
Table 1

Data collection items

Descriptive details

Population size

Gender comparison

Age distribution

Size of tumor

Site

Profile

History of change

Family history

History of excessive sun exposure

Histopathology

Cell type

Cohesion

Pigmentation

Mitosis

Giant cell

Epidermal relationship

Dermal characteristics

Clark level

Deep mitosis

Atypical mitosis

Nuclear pleomorphism

High N/C ratio

Asymmetry

Solid growth

Architecture

Peripheral pagetoidism

Apoptosis

Architectural maturation

Desmoplasia

Pushing deep border

Necrosis

Circumscription

Prominent nucleoli

Kamino bodies

Management and outcomes

Excision method

Margins

Death

Sentinel lymph node biopsy and results

Recurrence rate

Quality assessment

Each study that is included will be rated based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence to allow for recommendations to be drawn from the data [16]. Additionally, the quality of evidence regarding reported outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system principles [17] and a summary table will be produced.

Statistical analysis

To address the differentiation between Spitz nevi with malignant tumors or tumors with malignant potential, where appropriate, meta-analyses will be carried out by pooling mean differences and odds ratio (OR). If data from the study is not appropriate for meta-analyses, a narrative presentation or summary will be included. Review Manager 5.3 software package will be used for all meta-analyses tables and calculations.

Heterogeneity

Due to the complexity of the subject being studied, variability is expected to exist due to factors not limited to measurement error; therefore, a random-effects model (the DerSimonian and Laird method) [18] will be adopted for the meta-analyses with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and significance at the 5% level. We will assess heterogeneity between studies using the chi-squared test [19], and analysis of the inconsistency index (I 2) will measure how much variation across studies is a result of heterogeneity instead of chance alone (where threshold is I2 > 50%) [20].

Publication bias

Where there are sufficient studies included in a forest plot, a funnel plot and test of asymmetry will be used to assess publication bias [21]. Duval and Tweedie trim and fill statistics will be used to adjust for missing studies if publication bias is detected [2224].

Discussion

The methodology of this systematic review has been designed to adhere specifically to PRISMA-P protocols in order to be comprehensive and to minimize potential biases. Our objective was to offer a foundation for future diagnosis and management guidelines as comprehensive as possible.

Limitations

The highly heterogeneous body of literature on Spitz nevi that is likely to be identified during this search may include publications of low quality with small sample sizes. There is also a potential for selection bias and publication bias due to poor indexing of case series studies. The literature surrounding the diagnosis and management of the Spitz nevus is limited. For this reason, our inclusion criteria were very broad. It included publications on Spitz nevi in the adult population if there was some discussion on the pediatric population. Furthermore, texts from oncology, pathology, dermatology, and plastic surgery were similarly evaluated for a multidisciplinary evaluation of existing literature.

Conclusion

Information from this meta-analysis will be disseminated broadly via presentation at conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journal in order to ensure our findings have a clinical impact on patients. If an inadequate amount of material is generated to perform a quantifiable meta-analysis, we will conduct a narrative review of the literature and discuss observed trends between specialties.

Abbreviations

AMSTAR: 

Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews

GRADE: 

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

MINORS: 

Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies

PRISMA: 

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PRISMA-P: 

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the University of Ottawa librarian Mrs. Karine Fournier for her assistance with developing a search strategy.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

CM is the guarantor. All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. MS and JA contributed to the acquisition of data and analysis and interpretation of the results, drafted the manuscript, and provided statistical expertise. All authors contributed to the development of the selection criteria, the risk of bias assessment strategy, and data extraction criteria. The search strategy was developed with the help of JA. CM and MR provided expertise on the diagnosis and management of Spitz nevi. All authors read, provided feedback, and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The CHEO Research Ethics Board (REB) has reviewed and approved this study (reference no. 15\180x).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Ottawa
(2)
Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa
(3)
Paediatric Plastic Surgeon, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario

References

  1. Kernen JA, Ackerman LV. Spindle cell nevi and epithelioid cell nevi (so-called juvenile melanomas) in children and adults: a clinicopathological study of 27 cases. Cancer. 1960;13:612–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hafiji J, Rytina E, Burrows NP. The spectrum of spitzoid tumours: a clinical study. Australas J Dermatol. 2012;53(3):211–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerroni L, Barnhill R, Elder D, et al. Melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential—results of a tutorial held at the XXIX Symposium of the International Society of Dermatopathology in Graz. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:314–26.Google Scholar
  4. Barnhill RL, Argenyi ZB, From L, et al. Atypical Spitz nevi/tumors: lack of consensus for diagnosis, discrimination from melanoma, and prediction of outcome. Hum Pathol. 1999;30:513–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Situm M, Bolanca Z, Buljan M, et al. Nevus Spitz—everlasting diagnostic difficulties—the review. Coll Antropol. 2008;32 Suppl 2:171–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Weedon D, Little JH. Spindle and epithelioid cell nevi in children and adults. A review of 211 cases of the Spitz nevus. Cancer. 1977;40:217–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Argenziano G, Scalvenzi M, Brunetti B, et al. Dermatoscopic pitfalls in differentiating pigmented Spitz naevi from cutaneous melanomas. Br J Dermatol. 1999;141(5):788–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Moscarella E, Lallas A, Kyrgidis A. Clinical and dermoscopic features of atypical Spitz tumors: a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73(5):777–84.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Perez A. Spitz nevus and its variants, distinctive clinical and histopathologic features. Pathol Case Rev. 2007;12(6):235–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Al Dhaybi R, Agoumi M, Gagne I, et al. p16 expression: a marker of differentiation between childhood malignant melanomas and Spitz nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65(2):357–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrara G, Cavicchini S, Corradin MT. Hypopigmented atypical Spitzoid neoplasms (atypical Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz tumors, Spitzoid melanoma): a clinicopathological update. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2015;5(1):45–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Metzger AT, Kane AA, Bayliss SJ. Differences in treatment of Spitz nevi and atypical Spitz tumors in pediatric patients among dermatologists and plastic surgeons. J Am A Dermatol. 2013;149(11):1348–50.Google Scholar
  13. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Med J. 2011;343:d5928.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Shea B, Grimshaw J, Wells G, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2007;7:10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:712–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2016. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/. Accessed 1 Sept 2016.
  17. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315(7109):629–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Duval SJ, Tweedie RL. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Duval S, Tweedie RL. A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95(449):89–98.Google Scholar
  24. Duval SJ. The trim and fill method. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester: Wiley; 2005. p. 127–44.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement