Amyloid Variant of Central Odontogenic Fibroma in the Mandible: A Case Report and Literature Review

Non-Calcifying/Langerhans Cell-Rich Calcifying Epithelial Odontogenic Tumour: A Critical Review of the Rare and Distinctive Entity

BACKGROUND

The study aims to analyse the non-calcifying/Langerhans cell rich (NCLC) subtype of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumour (CEOT).  METHOD: The features of cases of the NCLC subtype of CEOT noted in the English literature by PubMed as well as 3 new cases were reviewed.

RESULTS

Overall, twenty-one cases were noted. Many were women in the fourth to sixth decades (male-to-female ratio =1 to 2). Radiologically, the lesion is often unilocular with resorption of the affected teeth. Nineteen of the 21 cases occurred in the maxilla, especially the anterior portion. On pathological examination, epithelial cells are noted in non-calcifying amyloid-rich fibrous stroma. The main differential diagnosis is the amyloid subtype of central odontogenic fibroma. Immunohistochemical studies revealed the tumour epithelial cells were positive for cytokeratins and p63 and contained CD1a, S-100, and langerin-positive Langerhans cells. On a median follow-up of 2 years, one patient had a recurrence one year after curettage.

CONCLUSION

The NCLC subtype of CEOT is unique as it contains significant numbers of Langerhans cells and has clinicopathological features distinctive from classic CEOT.

Proceedings of the 2023 North American Society of Head and Neck Pathology Companion Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March 12, 2023: Odontogenic Tumors: Have We Achieved an Evidence-Based Classification

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization's (WHO) chapter on odontogenic and maxillofacial bone tumors provides a global reference for diagnosis of these tumors. In the fifth edition, the inclusion of consensus definitions and development of essential and desirable diagnostic criteria help improve recognition of distinct entities. These are key enhancements since the diagnosis of odontogenic tumors is largely based on histomorphology which is taken in combination with clinical and radiographic appearances.

METHODS

Review.

RESULTS

Despite delineation of diagnostic criteria for ameloblastoma, adenoid ameloblastoma, and dentinogenic ghost cell tumor, a subset of these tumors continues to show overlapping histological features that can potentially lead to misdiagnosis. Accurate classification may be challenging on small biopsies, but potentially enhanced by refining existing diagnostic criteria and utilization of immunohistochemistry and/or molecular techniques in a specific cases. It has become clear that the clinical and histologic features of the non-calcifying Langerhans cell-rich subtype of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor and the amyloid-rich variant of odontogenic fibroma converge into a single tumor description. In addition, this tumor shows remarkable clinical, histological overlap with a subset of sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma located in the maxilla. Benign perineural involvement vs perineural invasion is an underexplored concept in odontogenic neoplasia and warrants clarification to reduce diagnostic confusion with sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

While controversial issues surrounding classification and discrete tumor entities are addressed in the WHO chapter, ambiguities inevitably remain. This review will examine several groups of odontogenic tumors to highlight persistent knowledge gaps, unmet needs and unresolved controversies.

Non-calcifying Langerhans Cell Rich Variant of Calcifying Epithelial Odontogenic Tumor and Amyloid Rich Variant of Central Odontogenic Fibroma: A Unique Entity or a Spectrum?

Overlapping clinicopathological features of non-calcifying Langerhans cell rich variant of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (NCLC-CEOT) and the amyloid rich variant of the central odontogenic fibroma (AR-COF) have been recognized recently. It is still under debate whether these two diseases are indeed one unique disease entity or belong to CEOT and COF, respectively. To clarify this issue, we have performed a literature review to compare the similarities and differences in clinicopathological features among NCLC-CEOT, AR-COF, classic CEOT, and classic COF. We aimed to investigate whether NCLC-CEOT and AR-COF might be the same and one distinctive disease entity, or a variant (or variants) of either CEOT or COF; or whether COF, NCLC-CEOT/AR-COF, and CEOT represented a histopathological spectrum of one disease. Our results indicate that NCLC-CEOT and AR-COF cases share many similar clinicopathological features. Thus, we suggest that they are the same disease entity. Due to nearly no reported recurrence of NCLC-CEOT/AR-COF cases, the conservative surgical treatment is appropriate. The NCLC-CEOT/AR-COF cases show some overlapping clinicopathological features with COF rather than the CEOT cases. However, differences in the clinicopathological features are still recognized among the NCLC-CEOT/AR-COF, COF, and CEOT cases. Future research, particularly molecular biological studies, may further elucidate their relationships and assist proper classification of the NCLC-CEOT/AR-COF cases.