Fowler Craig B, Brannon Robert B, Kessler Harvey P, Castle James T, Kahn Michael A
Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Wilford Hall Medical Center, 59 DTS/SGDTM, 2200 Bergquist Drive, Suite 1, Lackland AFB, TX, USA.
Head Neck Pathol. 2011 Dec;5(4):364-75. doi: 10.1007/s12105-011-0298-3. Epub 2011 Sep 14.
The glandular odontogenic cyst (GOC) is now a relatively well-known entity with recent reviews indicating over 100 cases reported in the English literature. The GOC's importance relates to the fact that it exhibits a propensity for recurrence similar to the odontogenic keratocyst, and that it may be confused microscopically with central mucoepidermoid carcinoma (CMEC). Numerous histopathologic features for the GOC have been described, but the exact microscopic criteria necessary for diagnosis have not been universally accepted. Furthermore, some of the microscopic features of GOC may also be found in dentigerous, botryoid, radicular, and surgical ciliated cysts. The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study is to further define the clinical, radiographic, and microscopic features of GOC, to determine which microscopic features may be helpful for diagnosis in problematic cases, to determine the most appropriate treatment, and to determine if GOC and CMEC share a histopathologic spectrum. In our series of 46 cases, the mean age at diagnosis was 51 years with 71% of cases in the 5th-7th decades. No gender predilection was noted. 80% of cases occurred in the mandible, and 60% of the lesions involved the anterior regions of the jaws. Swelling/expansion was the most common presenting complaint, although some cases were asymptomatic. Radiographically, most cases presented as a well-defined unilocular or multilocular radiolucency involving the periapical area of multiple teeth. Some lesions displayed a scalloped border. Cases also presented in dentigerous, lateral periodontal, and "globulomaxillary" relationships. The canine area was a common location for maxillary cases. All cases were treated conservatively (enucleation, curettage, cystectomy, excision). Follow-up on 18 cases revealed a recurrence rate of 50% (9/18), with 6 cases recurring more than once (range of follow-up: 2 months to 20 years; average length of follow-up: 8.75 years). The mean interval from initial treatment to first recurrence was 8 years, and from first recurrence to second recurrence was 5.8 years. Two cases recurred three times and the interval from second to third recurrence was 7 years (exact interval only documented in one case). All cases exhibited eosinophilic cuboidal (hobnail) cells, a feature not specific for GOC, but necessary for diagnosis, in our opinion. Univariate analysis indicated several features that are most helpful in distinguishing GOC from GOC mimickers in problematic cases, including: (1) the presence of microcysts (P < 0.0001); (2) epithelial spheres (P < 0.0001); (3) clear cells (P = 0.0002); (4) variable thickness of the epithelial cyst lining (P = 0.0002); and (5) multiple compartments (P = 0.006). Stratified analysis indicated that when microcysts are present, epithelial spheres and multiple compartments are still significant, and clear cells are marginally significant in distinguishing GOCs from GOC mimickers. The presence of microcysts (P = 0.001), clear cells (P = 0.032), and epithelial spheres (P = 0.042) appeared to be most helpful in distinguishing GOC associated with an unerupted tooth from dentigerous cyst with metaplastic changes. There were no statistically significant differences microscopically between GOCs that recurred and those that did not. The presence of 7 or more microscopic parameters was highly predictive of a diagnosis of GOC in our series (P < 0.0001), while the presence of 5 or less microscopic parameters was highly predictive of a non-GOC diagnosis (P < 0.0001). Islands resembling mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC-like islands) were identified in the cyst wall of three cases, only one of which had follow-up (no evidence of disease at 74 mo.); therefore, at this time insufficient information is available to determine whether GOC and CMEC share a histopathologic spectrum or whether MEC-like islands in GOCs are associated with more aggressive or malignant behavior.
腺源性牙源性囊肿(GOC)现在是一个相对广为人知的实体,最近的综述表明英文文献中报道了100多例。GOC的重要性在于它表现出与牙源性角化囊肿相似的复发倾向,并且在显微镜下可能与中央黏液表皮样癌(CMEC)混淆。已经描述了GOC的许多组织病理学特征,但诊断所需的确切微观标准尚未得到普遍认可。此外,GOC的一些微观特征也可能出现在含牙囊肿、葡萄状囊肿、根端囊肿和外科性纤毛囊肿中。这项多中心回顾性研究的目的是进一步明确GOC的临床、影像学和微观特征,确定哪些微观特征可能有助于疑难病例的诊断,确定最合适的治疗方法,并确定GOC和CMEC是否具有共同的组织病理学谱。在我们的46例病例系列中,诊断时的平均年龄为51岁,71%的病例在第五至第七个十年。未发现性别偏好。80%的病例发生在下颌骨,60%的病变累及颌骨前部区域。肿胀/膨隆是最常见的主诉,尽管有些病例无症状。影像学上,大多数病例表现为边界清晰的单房或多房透射区,累及多颗牙齿的根尖区。一些病变显示出扇贝样边界。病例也表现为含牙、侧方牙周和“球上颌”关系。上颌病例的常见部位是尖牙区。所有病例均采用保守治疗(摘除、刮除、囊肿切除术、切除术)。对18例病例的随访显示复发率为50%(9/18),6例病例复发不止一次(随访范围:2个月至20年;平均随访时间:8.75年)。从初始治疗到首次复发的平均间隔为8年,从首次复发到第二次复发的平均间隔为5.8年。2例病例复发3次,从第二次复发到第三次复发的间隔为7年(仅1例记录了确切间隔)。所有病例均表现出嗜酸性立方(鞋钉样)细胞,这一特征对GOC不具有特异性,但在我们看来是诊断所必需的。单因素分析表明,在疑难病例中,有几个特征最有助于将GOC与GOC模仿者区分开来,包括:(1)微囊肿的存在(P < 0.0001);(2)上皮球(P < 0.0001);(3)透明细胞(P = 0.0002);(4)上皮囊肿衬里厚度可变(P = 0.0002);(5)多个腔隙(P = 0.006)。分层分析表明,当存在微囊肿时,上皮球和多个腔隙在区分GOC与GOC模仿者方面仍然具有显著性,透明细胞在区分两者时具有边缘显著性。微囊肿的存在(P = 0.001)、透明细胞(P = 0.032)和上皮球(P = 0.042)似乎最有助于将与未萌出牙相关的GOC与有化生改变的含牙囊肿区分开来。复发的GOC和未复发的GOC在显微镜下没有统计学上的显著差异。在我们的系列中,存在7个或更多微观参数高度预测GOC诊断(P < 0.0001),而存在5个或更少微观参数高度预测非GOC诊断(P < 0.0001)。在3例病例的囊肿壁中发现了类似黏液表皮样癌的岛状结构(MEC样岛),其中只有1例有随访(74个月时无疾病证据);因此,目前没有足够的信息来确定GOC和CMEC是否具有共同的组织病理学谱,或者GOC中的MEC样岛是否与更具侵袭性或恶性行为相关。