4.6 Article

A clinicopathological study of malignant odontogenic tumours

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages 107-112

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04200.x

Keywords

ameloblastic carcinoma; ameloblastoma; malignant odontogenic tumours

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chaisuparat R, Sawangarun W & Scheper M A ?(2012) Histopathology similar to 61, 107112 A clinicopathological study of malignant odontogenic tumours Aims: Malignant odontogenic tumours (MOTs) are rare neoplasms occurring primarily within the jaw. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence, demographics and clinicopathological features of the MOTs from two institutions. Methods and results: The records of the Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand and the Department of Oncology and Diagnostic Sciences, Dental School, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA were searched from 1991 to 2010; we identified 17 cases of previously diagnosed MOTs. All cases were reviewed independently of the previous diagnosis by two blinded oral pathologists and reclassified based on the 2005 World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumours. In this study we describe in detail these 17 cases which presented with an average age of 50.29 years and a male to female ratio of 2.4:1. These cases included five ameloblastic carcinomas, four atypical ameloblastomas, three primary intraosseous squamous cell carcinomas, three intraosseous mucoepidermoid carcinomas and two clear cell odontogenic carcinomas. All cases were treated by surgical resection and one patient with ameloblastic carcinoma received postoperative radiotherapy. Conclusions: Malignant odontogenic tumours are considered rare central odontogenic lesions. Awareness of their existence, rapid diagnosis and successful treatment using surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy is critical to patient survival.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available