Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Pathology and Surgery, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, 19 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, S10 2TA, UK.
Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
Head Neck Pathol. 2021 Mar;15(1):186-201. doi: 10.1007/s12105-020-01200-9. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
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.
牙源性钙化上皮瘤(CEOT)的首次详细描述归功于 Jens Pindborg,但这种肿瘤在此前几年就已经被描述过了。随后,CEOT 被纳入了 1971 年世界卫生组织(WHO)牙源性肿瘤分类,此后还描述了许多变体,这给诊断标准增加了混乱。我们旨在调查关于 CEOT 变体的文献,同时回顾我们单一机构的 CEOT 经验。收集到的病例进行了整理,包括现有的临床、放射学和组织学信息,然后进行了回顾,同时考虑到自最初诊断以来对牙源性肿瘤的理解和分类的变化。我们从 1975 年到 2017 年共发现了 26 例有组织学材料的病例。其中,只有 13 例(50%)显示出“经典”的组织学表现,而有两例被确定为公认的变体。在 11 例中,选择了其他诊断或鉴别诊断,其中 4 例没有明确诊断。在 10 例检测的病例中,增殖分数(Ki67)为 2.1%±0.18。这些发现说明了这组肿瘤的诊断挑战,并突出了知识的差距。EWSR1 基因细胞遗传学分析等技术可能对具有透明细胞的病例有帮助。然而,在其他有争议的领域,包括非钙化和朗格汉斯细胞丰富的变体,可能需要进一步的研究,也许可以利用测序技术来完善分类。由于这些病变相对罕见,如果未来的工作可以作为国际合作来进行,将会很有益处。