Epigenetic similarity between adenoid ameloblastoma and dentinogenic ghost cell tumour: DNA methylation analysis in odontogenic tumours

The updated classification of odontogenic tumors by the World Health Organization (WHO) has included adenoid ameloblastoma (AA) as a distinct entity. However, distinguishing between AA and dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT) can still be challenging due to their significant morphologic similarities. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics of AA and DGCT to aid in their differentiation and to shed light on their pathologic mechanisms. Thirteen cases of AA and 14 cases of DGCT (15 samples) were analyzed, along with 11 cases of adenomatoid odontogenic tumor (AOT) and 18 cases of conventional ameloblastoma (AM) for comparative purposes. The study found that AA and DGCT shared a similar long-term prognosis. Immunohistochemically, all cytokeratins detected, except CK8/18, were not statistically significant in differentiating AA and DGCT, while there was a statistically significant difference in the immunophenotype of CK7 and CK10/13 between AA and AM. Nuclear β-catenin accumulation were detected in all cases of AA and DGCT, while AOTs and AMs exhibited cytoplasmic β-catenin. Molecularly, CTNNB1 hotspot mutations were found in only 1 case of AA (1/13), but not found in the other 3 types of tumors. BRAF p.V600E mutation was positive in 2/13 (15%) AA, 1/15 (7%) DGCT, and 2/11 (18%) AOT cases. In comparison, conventional AM was positive for BRAF p.V600E mutation in 94% (17/18) of cases, while KRAS mutations were detected in 63% (7/11) of AOT cases. The study suggests that the so-called AA is a rare benign tumor that exhibits clinical, immunohistochemical, and molecular features similar to DGCTs. Based on these findings, AA should not be categorized as a standalone entity solely based on the presence of whorls/morules and cribriform/duct-like structures. Further studies are needed to investigate the pathologic mechanisms of these tumors and to identify potential therapeutic targets.

Adenoid Ameloblastoma Shares Clinical, Histologic, and Molecular Features With Dentinogenic Ghost Cell Tumor: The Histologic Spectrum of WNT Pathway–Altered Benign Odontogenic Tumors

Dentinogenic ghost cell tumor revisited from a single institution in China with focus on adenoid ameloblastoma-like features

A recent systematic review published in Head and Neck Pathology found that 3.8% of dentinogenic ghost cell tumors harbor duct-like/ cribriform architecture. Herein we discuss this finding regarding the differential diagnosis of this tumor with adenoid ameloblastoma. A critical review of some microscopic findings reported in a recent paper published in the Head and Neck Pathology Journal was done. Although there are overlapping microscopic features with dentinogenic ghost cell tumor, adenoid ameloblastoma is distinguished by the combination of duct-like structures and whorls/morules. In our opinion, at least some cases previously diagnosed as dentinogenic ghost cell tumors may now be more accurately classified as adenoid ameloblastoma. We conclude that a reassessment of dentinogenic ghost cell tumor cases using the diagnostic criteria proposed by the new WHO classification of Head and Neck Tumors (2022) is warranted.

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. Review. 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. 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.

The expression of NF-κB, Ki-67 and MMP-9 in CCOT, DGCT and GCOC

Calcifying odontogenic cyst was described first by Gorlin et al. in 1962; since then several hundreds of cases had been reported. In 1981, Praetorius et al. proposed a widely used classification. Afterwards, several authors proposed different classifications and discussed its neoplastic potential. The 2005 WHO Classification of Odontogenic Tumours re-named this entity as calcifying cystic odontogenic tumour (CCOT) and defined the clinico-pathological features of the ghost cell odontogenic tumours, the CCOT, the dentinogenic ghost cell tumour (DGCT) and the ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC). The aim of this paper was to review the clinical-pathological features of 122 CCOT, DGCT and GCOC cases retrieved from the files of the oral pathology laboratories from 14 institutions in Mexico, South Africa, Denmark, the USA, Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. It attempts to clarify and to group the clinico-pathological features of the analysed cases and to propose an objective, comprehensive and useful classification under the 2005 WHO classification guidelines. CCOT cases were divided into four sub-types: (i) simple cystic; (ii) odontoma associated; (iii) ameloblastomatous proliferating; and (iv) CCOT associated with benign odontogenic tumours other than odontomas. DGCT was separated into a central aggressive DGCT and a peripheral non-aggressive counterpart. For GCOC, three variants were identified. The first reported cases of a recurrent peripheral CCOT and a multiple synchronous, CCOT are included. Our results suggest that ghost cell odontogenic tumours comprise a heterogeneous group of neoplasms which need further studies to define more precisely their biological behaviour.

The advances in molecular technologies have allowed a better understanding of the molecular basis of odontogenic cysts and tumours. PTCH1 mutations have been reported in a high proportion of odontogenic keratocyst. BRAF p.V600E are recurrent in ameloblastoma and KRAS p.G12V/R in adenomatoid odontogenic tumour, dysregulating the MAPK/ERK pathway. Notably, BRAF p.V600E is also detected in ameloblastic carcinoma, but at a lower frequency than in its benign counterpart ameloblastoma. Recently, adenoid ameloblastoma has been shown to be BRAF wild-type and to harbour CTNNB1 (β-catenin gene) mutations, further suggesting that it is not an ameloblastoma subtype. CTNNB1 mutations also occur in other ghost-cell-containing tumours, including calcifying odontogenic cysts, dentinogenic ghost cell tumours and odontogenic carcinoma with dentinoid, but the link between CTNNB1 mutations and ghost cell formation in these lesions remains unclear. Regarding mixed tumours, BRAF p.V600E has been reported in a subset of ameloblastic fibromas, ameloblastic-fibrodentinomas and fibro-odontomas, in addition to ameloblastic fibrosarcoma. Such mutation-positivity in a subset of samples can be helpful in differentiating some of these lesions from odontoma, which is BRAF-wild-type. Recently, FOS rearrangements have been reported in cementoblastoma, supporting its relationship with osteoblastoma. Collectively, the identification of recurrent mutations in these aforementioned lesions has helped to clarify their molecular basis and to better understand the interrelationships between some tumours, but none of these genetic abnormalities is diagnostic. Since the functional effect of pathogenic mutations is context and tissue-dependent, a clear role for the reported mutations in odontogenic cysts and tumours in their pathogenesis remains to be elucidated.

A peripheral dentinogenic ghost cell tumor: A case report

10 - Odontogenic Cysts and Tumors

To evaluate the expression of nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kappaB), Ki-67 and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) in calcifying odontogenic cyst (COC), in order to investigate the proliferation and invasion of COC. Twenty-six cases of COC were classified into calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor (CCOT), dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT) and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC) based on the WHO classification of odontogenic tumors in 2005. The specimens of COC and 10 classic ameloblastoma (AB) were examined immunohistochemically to determine the expression of NF-kappaB p65, Ki-67 and MMP-9. NF-kappaB was mainly detected in the cytoplasm of most tumor cells, but was only detected in the nucleus of few tumor cells (rate of nuclear staining < 1%). The expression of Ki-67 was significantly higher in GCOC than in CCOT (P < 0.001), DGCT (P < 0.05) and AB (P < 0.005). MMP-9 was detected both in tumor cells and stromal cells. GCOC showed significantly higher percentage of MMP-9 positive cases in stromal cells than CCOT, DGCT and AB (P < 0.05). NF-kappaB may minimally affect the progression and invasion of COC. GCOC shows significantly higher proliferative activity and aggressiveness than CCOT and DGCT. MMP-9 in stroma may play a key role in the invasion of GCOC.

Calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumors (CEOTs) and ghost cell odontogenic tumors (GCOTs) are characteristic odontogenic origin epithelial tumors which produce calcifying materials from transformed epithelial tumor cells. CEOT is a benign odontogenic tumor composed of polygonal epithelial tumor cells that show retrogressive calcific changes, amyloid-like deposition, and clear cytoplasm. Differentially, GCOTs are a group of transient tumors characterized by ghost cell presence, which comprise calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor (CCOT), dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT), and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC), all derived from calcifying odontogenic cysts (COCs). There is considerable confusion about COCs and GCOTs terminology, but these lesions can be classified as COCs or GCOTs, based on their cystic or tumorous natures, respectively. GCOTs include ameloblastomatous tumors derived from dominant odontogenic cysts classified as CCOTs, ghost cell-rich tumors producing dentinoid materials as DGCTs, and the GCOT malignant counterpart, GCOCs. Many authors have reported CEOTs and GCOTs variably express keratins, β-catenin, BCL-2, BSP, RANKL, OPG, Notch1, Jagged1, TGF-β, SMADs, and other proteins. However, these heterogeneous lesions should be differentially diagnosed to allow for accurate tumor progression and prognosis prediction.

Dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT) and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC) form a spectrum of rare benign and malignant odontogenic neoplasms, respectively. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative systematic review of the clinicopathological, genetic, therapeutic, and prognostic features of DGCT and GCOC. The electronic search was performed until December 2020 on seven electronic databases. Case reports, series, and research studies with enough histopathological criteria for diagnosis and all genomic studies were included. Both DGCT and GCOC showed a male prevalence (p = 0.043), with mandibular and maxillary predilections, respectively (p = 0.008). Peripheral DGCT (DGCTp) affected most elderly people (p < 0.001), and central DGCT (DGCTc) and GCOC occurred mainly in younger individuals. Unilateral enlargement of maxilla or mandible was the most common clinical sign associated with a radiolucent or mixed image. Ameloblastomatous epithelium was often present in both neoplasms. Basaloid and large cells with vesicular nuclei were also frequently seen in GCOC. β-catenin expression and mutations (CTNNB1 gene) were found in DGCT and GCOC. Conservative surgery was mostly used for DGCTp, while radical resection was chosen for DGCTc and GCOC. High recurrence rates were found in DGCTc and GCOC. Metastasis occurred in 16.7% of GCOC cases and the 5-year survival rate was 72.6%. DGCT and GCOC share numerous clinicopathological features and demand a careful histopathological evaluation, considering the overlap features with other odontogenic tumors and the possibility of malignant transformation of DGCT. A strict regular post-operative follow-up is mandatory due to high recurrence rates and metastatic capacity in GCOC.

A rare case of melanin-pigmented dentinogenic ghost cell tumor

Benign "mixed"odontogenic tumors consist of an epithelial and ectomesenchymal tumor component, distinguishing them from pure epithelial and pure ectomesenchymal odontogenic tumors. In addition, they may have the ability to produce dentin, enamel or cementum. Therefore, they can sometimes already be differentiated radiologically from epithelial odontogenic tumors. Some of the mixed odontogenic lesions are regarded as true tumors (ameloblastic fibroma, odontoameloblastoma, dentinogenic ghost cell tumor), while others are assumed to represent hamartomatous lesions (complex and compound odontoma, probably also ameloblastic fibrodentinoma and ameloblastic fibroodontoma). Preceded by keratocystic odontogenic tumor, complex and compound odontomas are the second most common odontogenic tumors, while other members of the "mixed" odontogenic tumor group are far less frequently diagnosed. Odontoameloblastoma and dentinogenic ghost cell tumors are locally aggressive lesions that require total resection. All other lesions of this group are treated by local excision. Since ameloblastic fibrosarcoma may evolve from ameloblastic fibroma, patients with ameloblastic fibroma should remain in long-term follow-up.