Toyosawa Satoru, Yuki Michiko, Kishino Mitsunobu, Ogawa Yuzo, Ueda Takafumi, Murakami Shumei, Konishi Eiichi, Iida Seiji, Kogo Mikihiko, Komori Toshihisa, Tomita Yasuhiko
Department of Oral Pathology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Mod Pathol. 2007 Mar;20(3):389-96. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800753.
Ossifying fibroma and fibrous dysplasia of the jaw are maxillofacial fibro-osseous lesions that should be distinguished each other by a pathologist because they show distinct patterns of disease progression. However, both lesions often show similar histological and radiological features, making distinction between the two a diagnostic dilemma. In this study, we performed immunological and molecular analyses of five ossifying fibromas, four cases of extragnathic fibrous dysplasia, and five cases of gnathic fibrous dysplasia with typical histological and radiographic features. First, we examined the difference between fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma in the expression of Runx2 (which determined osteogenic differentiation from mesenchymal stem cells) and other osteogenic markers. Fibroblastic cells in fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma showed strong Runx2 expression in the nucleus. The bone matrices of both lesions showed similar expression patterns for all markers tested except for osteocalcin. Immunoreactivity for osteocalcin was strong throughout calcified regions in fibrous dysplasia, but weak in ossifying fibroma lesions. Second, we performed PCR analysis with peptide nucleic acid (PNA) for mutations at the Arg(201) codon of the alpha subunit of the stimulatory G protein gene (GNAS), which has reported to be a marker for extragnathic fibrous dysplasia. All nine cases of extragnathic or gnathic fibrous dysplasia were positive for this mutation. On the other hand, none of the five cases of ossifying fibroma showed the mutation. These findings indicate that although fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma are similar disease entities, especially in the demonstration of the osteogenic lineage in stromal fibroblast-like cells, they show distinct differences that can be revealed by immunohistochemical detection of osteocalcin expression. Furthermore, PCR analysis with PNA for GNAS mutations at the Arg(201) codon is a useful method to differentiate between fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma.
骨化性纤维瘤和颌骨骨纤维异常增殖症是颌面骨纤维-骨病变,病理学家应将它们区分开来,因为它们呈现出不同的疾病进展模式。然而,这两种病变通常表现出相似的组织学和放射学特征,使得两者的鉴别成为诊断难题。在本研究中,我们对五例骨化性纤维瘤、四例颌骨外骨纤维异常增殖症以及五例具有典型组织学和影像学特征的颌骨骨纤维异常增殖症进行了免疫和分子分析。首先,我们检测了骨纤维异常增殖症和骨化性纤维瘤在Runx2(其决定间充质干细胞的成骨分化)及其他成骨标志物表达上的差异。骨纤维异常增殖症和骨化性纤维瘤中的成纤维细胞在细胞核中均显示出强烈的Runx2表达。除骨钙素外,两种病变的骨基质在所有检测标志物上均表现出相似的表达模式。骨纤维异常增殖症钙化区域的骨钙素免疫反应性较强,而在骨化性纤维瘤病变中则较弱。其次,我们使用肽核酸(PNA)进行聚合酶链反应(PCR)分析,检测刺激性G蛋白基因(GNAS)α亚基第201位密码子的精氨酸(Arg)突变,该突变已被报道为颌骨外骨纤维异常增殖症的一个标志物。所有九例颌骨外或颌骨骨纤维异常增殖症病例均检测到该突变。另一方面,五例骨化性纤维瘤病例均未显示该突变。这些发现表明,尽管骨纤维异常增殖症和骨化性纤维瘤是相似的疾病实体,尤其是在基质成纤维样细胞中成骨谱系的表现方面,但它们存在明显差异,可通过免疫组化检测骨钙素表达来揭示。此外,使用PNA进行PCR分析检测GNAS基因第201位密码子的精氨酸突变是区分骨纤维异常增殖症和骨化性纤维瘤有用的方法。