CEOT variants or entities : time for a rethink? A case series with review of the literature

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Siriwardena, B.S.M.S.
dc.contributor.author Speight, Paul M.
dc.contributor.author Franklin, Christopher D.
dc.contributor.author Abdelkarim, Rasha
dc.contributor.author Khurram, Syed Ali
dc.contributor.author Hunter, K.D. (Keith)
dc.date.accessioned 2020-10-09T12:47:11Z
dc.date.available 2020-10-09T12:47:11Z
dc.date.issued 2021-03
dc.description.abstract 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. en_ZA
dc.description.department Oral Pathology and Oral Biology en_ZA
dc.description.librarian am2020 en_ZA
dc.description.uri https://link.springer.com/journal/12105 en_ZA
dc.identifier.citation Siriwardena, B.S.M.S., Speight, P.M., Franklin, C.D. et al. CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature. Head and Neck Pathology 15, 186–201 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-020-01200-9. en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn 1936-055X (print)
dc.identifier.issn 1936-0568 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.1007/s12105-020-01200-9
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/76423
dc.language.iso en en_ZA
dc.publisher Springer en_ZA
dc.rights © The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. en_ZA
dc.subject Odontogenic en_ZA
dc.subject Tumor en_ZA
dc.subject Clear cell en_ZA
dc.subject Amyloid en_ZA
dc.subject EWSR1 en_ZA
dc.subject Calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT) en_ZA
dc.title CEOT variants or entities : time for a rethink? A case series with review of the literature en_ZA
dc.type Article en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record