Cargando…
CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature
The first detailed description of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT) are ascribed to Jens Pindborg, but this tumor was described some years previously. Subsequently, CEOT was included in the 1971 WHO classification of odontogenic tumors and a since then number of variants have been descr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010033/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32642935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12105-020-01200-9 |
_version_ | 1783672982292398080 |
---|---|
author | Siriwardena, B. S. M. S. Speight, Paul M. Franklin, Christopher D. Abdelkarim, Rasha Khurram, Syed Ali Hunter, Keith D. |
author_facet | Siriwardena, B. S. M. S. Speight, Paul M. Franklin, Christopher D. Abdelkarim, Rasha Khurram, Syed Ali Hunter, Keith D. |
author_sort | Siriwardena, B. S. M. S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The first detailed description of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT) are ascribed to Jens Pindborg, but this tumor was described some years previously. Subsequently, CEOT was included in the 1971 WHO classification of odontogenic tumors and a since then number of variants have been described, which have added confusion to the diagnostic criteria. We aimed to survey the literature on the variants of CEOT, in parallel with a review of our single institution experience of CEOTs. Cases identified were collated, including available clinical, radiological and histological information and then reviewed, taking into account changes in the understanding and classifications of odontogenic tumors since initial diagnosis. We identified 26 cases from 1975 to 2017 for which histological material was available. Of these, only 13 (50%) showed the “classic” histological appearance, whilst two cases were identified as recognized variants. In 11 cases, other diagnoses or a differential diagnosis were preferred, with no agreed diagnosis in four of these. The proliferation fraction (Ki67) in the 10 cases tested was 2.1% ± 0.18. These findings illustrate the diagnostic challenges in this group of tumors and highlight the gaps in knowledge. Techniques, such as EWSR1 gene cytogenetic analysis, may be helpful in cases with clear cells. However, in other areas of controversy, including the non-calcifying and Langerhans cell rich variants, further investigation, perhaps utilizing sequencing technologies may be needed to refine the classification. Owing to the relative rarity of these lesions it would be beneficial if future work could be pursued as an international collaboration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8010033 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80100332021-04-16 CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature Siriwardena, B. S. M. S. Speight, Paul M. Franklin, Christopher D. Abdelkarim, Rasha Khurram, Syed Ali Hunter, Keith D. Head Neck Pathol Original Paper The first detailed description of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT) are ascribed to Jens Pindborg, but this tumor was described some years previously. Subsequently, CEOT was included in the 1971 WHO classification of odontogenic tumors and a since then number of variants have been described, which have added confusion to the diagnostic criteria. We aimed to survey the literature on the variants of CEOT, in parallel with a review of our single institution experience of CEOTs. Cases identified were collated, including available clinical, radiological and histological information and then reviewed, taking into account changes in the understanding and classifications of odontogenic tumors since initial diagnosis. We identified 26 cases from 1975 to 2017 for which histological material was available. Of these, only 13 (50%) showed the “classic” histological appearance, whilst two cases were identified as recognized variants. In 11 cases, other diagnoses or a differential diagnosis were preferred, with no agreed diagnosis in four of these. The proliferation fraction (Ki67) in the 10 cases tested was 2.1% ± 0.18. These findings illustrate the diagnostic challenges in this group of tumors and highlight the gaps in knowledge. Techniques, such as EWSR1 gene cytogenetic analysis, may be helpful in cases with clear cells. However, in other areas of controversy, including the non-calcifying and Langerhans cell rich variants, further investigation, perhaps utilizing sequencing technologies may be needed to refine the classification. Owing to the relative rarity of these lesions it would be beneficial if future work could be pursued as an international collaboration. Springer US 2020-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8010033/ /pubmed/32642935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12105-020-01200-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Siriwardena, B. S. M. S. Speight, Paul M. Franklin, Christopher D. Abdelkarim, Rasha Khurram, Syed Ali Hunter, Keith D. CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature |
title | CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature |
title_full | CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature |
title_fullStr | CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature |
title_full_unstemmed | CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature |
title_short | CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature |
title_sort | ceot variants or entities: time for a rethink? a case series with review of the literature |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010033/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32642935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12105-020-01200-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT siriwardenabsms ceotvariantsorentitiestimeforarethinkacaseserieswithreviewoftheliterature AT speightpaulm ceotvariantsorentitiestimeforarethinkacaseserieswithreviewoftheliterature AT franklinchristopherd ceotvariantsorentitiestimeforarethinkacaseserieswithreviewoftheliterature AT abdelkarimrasha ceotvariantsorentitiestimeforarethinkacaseserieswithreviewoftheliterature AT khurramsyedali ceotvariantsorentitiestimeforarethinkacaseserieswithreviewoftheliterature AT hunterkeithd ceotvariantsorentitiestimeforarethinkacaseserieswithreviewoftheliterature |