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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siriwardena, B. S. M. S., Speight, Paul M., Franklin, Christopher D., Abdelkarim, Rasha, Khurram, Syed Ali, Hunter, Keith D.
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