Abstract
The non-specific clinical symptoms of anorectal brownish-black mass do not help to differentiate colorectal cancer, hemorrhoids, rectal ulcers which result in a delayed diagnosis or lead to inadequate management of lethal anorectal melanoma. Primary malignant melanoma of the anorectal region is an uncommon tumor, constituting approximately 1% of anal canal tumors which may be misdiagnosed clinically as hemorrhoids. Because of aggressive behavior and poor prognosis, efficient and prompt diagnosis is required in these cases. We report 2 cases of this rare tumor.
Highlights
Primary malignant melanoma of the anorectal region is an uncommon tumor, constitute about approximately 1% of anal canal tumors and 0.4–1.6% of all melanomas.[1, 2] Mucosal malignant melanomas are more common in dark-skinned inhabitant than white.[2]
The delayed diagnosis may contribute to the poor prognosis of anorectal malignant melanoma (ARMM) and tumor invasion with or without the absence of metastasis at the time of diagnosis may correlate with patient survival.[1, 2, 4]
We report the 2 cases of rare ARMM initially clinically misdiagnosed as a haemorrhoid
Summary
Primary malignant melanoma of the anorectal region is an uncommon tumor, constitute about approximately 1% of anal canal tumors and 0.4–1.6% of all melanomas.[1, 2] Mucosal malignant melanomas are more common in dark-skinned inhabitant than white.[2]. On a digital rectal examination, a brownish-black, firm mass was discovered. In both cases, the initial clinical diagnosis of hemorrhoids was considered. Based on the size and extent of the lesion radiologically, wide local excision was not possible and abdominoperineal resection (APR) was done in both the cases and specimens were sent for histopathological examination Both the specimens show a solid, blackish, soft to firm mass measuring 9x7x...cm and 8x6.5x5 cm noted at the distal end of the rectum. The tumor cells are immunopositive for S-100, and human melanoma black (HMB-45) Both the cases were immunopositive for CD117 and case 2 was immunopositive for BRAF (Fig. 3). The written and informed consent was obtained from the patients for the presentation and publication
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
