Adenoid ameloblastoma (AA) was recently recognised as a separate tumour type in the most recent World Health Organisation (WHO) classification of head and neck tumours. This decision has been considered controversial by several groups, who have described AA as a subtype of ameloblastoma, a hybrid odontogenic tumour or to fall within the spectrum of other recognised odontogenic tumours, including dentinogenic ghost cell tumour and adenomatoid odontogenic tumour. Here we review the reasons for the WHO decision to classify AA as a separate tumour type. We also critique molecular and histological findings from recent reports published since the WHO classification. While acknowledging that the classification of tumours is constantly evolving, the balance of current evidence suggests that AA should remain a distinct tumour type, and not a subtype of ameloblastoma, pending further molecular characterisation.

BACKGROUND: Adenomatoid Odontogenic Tumor (AOT) accounts for 3% of all odontogenic tumors. It has been classified by WHO as an odontogenic tumor of purely epithelial origin. The current study attempts to establish the origin of the tumor along with detailed histopathological and clinicoradiographic analysis of 43 cases of AOT.
METHODS: Forty-three cases were reviewed from the departmental archives for demographic data, radiographic features and histological features. Further, histopathological slides were stained with Picrosirius Red (PSR) and observed under polarised light.
RESULTS: A majority of the cases were seen in the anterior jaws (76.7%), and were less than 3 cms (76.7%) in greatest dimension. Equal number of cases were of follicular and extra-follicular location while one was peripheral. Predominantly solid histological pattern was noted in 53.5%. Varied sub-patterns were observed with most cases exhibiting solid nodules and strands of tumor cells. Few cases showed melanin pigmentation. Over a third of cases (37.2%) showed dentigerous cyst like areas and one case each showed features of ossifying fibroma and focal cemento-osseous dysplasia. Tumor droplets, hyaline rings within duct-like structures, dentinoid material and osteodentin showed reddish yellow birefringence when observed under polarised microscopy post PSR staining.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the diverse histopathological variation of AOT with evidence to reclassify it as a mixed odontogenic tumor based on the polarising microscopic findings with PSR staining.

暂无摘要。

Calcifying odontogenic cyst (COC), once called calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor, is classified under the category of odontogenic cysts. However, the proliferative capacity of the lesional epithelium and consistent nuclear β-catenin expression raise questions about its current classification. This study aimed to determine whether COC would be better classified as a neoplasm in the histologic and molecular context. Eleven odontogenic lesions diagnosed as COC or calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor were included in this study. The growth patterns of the lesional epithelium were analyzed histologically in all cases. β-catenin immunohistochemistry and molecular profiling using Sanger sequencing and whole-exome sequencing were performed in 10 cases. Of the 11 cases studied, histologic features reminiscent of so-called adenoid ameloblastoma were observed in 72.7% (8/11), and small islands of clear cells extended into the wall in 36.4% (4/11). Intraluminal and/or mural epithelial proliferation was found in 72.7% of the cases (8/11). Nuclear β-catenin expression was observed focally in all 10 cases studied, mainly highlighting epithelial cells forming morules and adjacent to dentinoid. CTNNB1 hotspot mutations were detected in 60.0% of the cases (6/10). All the remaining cases had frameshift mutations in tumor-suppressor genes involved in the WNT pathway, including APC and NEDD4L. Recurrent WNT pathway mutations leading to nuclear translocation of β-catenin and distinct epithelial growth patterns found in COC are the neoplastic features shared by its solid counterpart, dentinogenic ghost cell tumor, supporting its classification as a tumor rather than a cyst.

OBJECTIVE: Adenoid ameloblastoma (AA) is an epithelial odontogenic tumor that was recognized as a separate entity in the last odontogenic classification of WHO in 2022. The etiology is unknown, and the pathogenesis remains controversial. The objective of this study is to contribute the clinicopathological features of 4 additional BRAF-negative cases to the existing literature, aiming to enhance the molecular understanding of this unique tumor in the forthcoming classification.
METHODS: This study consists of a case series of four patients diagnosed with AA. The patients\' demographic and clinical information were collected from the universities\' medical achieves. Histopathologically, all cases were reexamined according to the latest update of the WHO odontogenic tumor classification. In addition to H&E and immunohistochemical stains, cytogenetics was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Well-defined unilocular radiolucent lesions were observed in all cases. Ameloblastoma-like components exhibited reserved nuclear polarity, suprabasal stellate reticulum-like epithelium, duct-like structure, whorls/morules, and cribriform architecture were common features. Variable immunoreactivity to CK7, CK19, CK14, p63, and p40 were determined, and proliferative activity was greater than 15%. The BRAF molecular study revealed no mutations.
CONCLUSIONS: When diagnosing AA, the essential histopathological characteristics must be rigorously applied, and a significant portion of the lesion should contain these features. Additionally, despite limited molecular data, since the BRAF mutation commonly observed in ameloblastomas is not present in the majority of AA cases, we propose changing the term \"ameloblastoma\" to \"ameloblastic\" and referring to it as \"adenoid ameloblastic tumor\" in the forthcoming classification.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a new odontogenic tumor has been described, the so-called adenoid ameloblastoma (AdAM). The aim of this review was to determine the clinical and imaging features of AdAM and to describe its main histopathological findings.
METHODS: The systematic review included published cases with a diagnosis of AdAM in the gnathic bones, which had sufficient clinical, imaging, and histopathological data to confirm its diagnosis. The following histopathological diagnostic criteria were adopted: presence of ameloblastoma-like components, duct-like structures, spiral cellular condensations, and a cribriform architecture.
RESULTS: Fifteen articles, corresponding to 30 cases of AdAM, were selected. Most cases affected men (63.3%), with a slight preference for the mandible (16:14) and the posterior region of gnathic bones was the most commonly affected site. The mean age at diagnosis was 40.8 years. Clinically, the lesions usually presented as a swelling (53.3%) and, radiographically, as a well-defined radiolucency (33.4%). Surgical resection (40%) was the most frequently adopted treatment and recurrence occurred in 30% of cases. Microscopic examination showed cribriform areas in most AdAM cases (93.3%); duct-like structures and spiral cellular condensations were seen in 100% of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The small number of reported cases, the existence of erroneous diagnoses, and the adoption of initial conservative management make it difficult to determine whether AdAM has a higher risk of recurrence or more aggressive biological behavior than conventional ameloblastomas.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to identify adenoid ameloblastoma (AdAM) from previously diagnosed cases of dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT), and gain insight to the possible relationship between AdAM and DGCT.
METHODS: DGCT cases diagnosed between 2006 and 2022 were re-examined with focus on the AdAM-like features.
RESULTS: A total of nine patients were included. Seven patients were males and two were females. The mean age was 38.0 ± 16.0 years. Five tumors occurred in the maxilla and four in the mandible, with a remarkable predilection for the posterior regions of both jaws. Microscopically, dentinoid material deposition was present in all cases. The ghost cells were absent in two cases. Rare ghost cells (<1%) were observed in three cases, and a higher proportion of ghost cells (5%-20%) were present in the remaining four cases. All cases showed prominent AdAM-like features, including duct-like structures, whorls/morules, and cribriform architecture. According to the diagnostic criteria proposed by the 2022 WHO classification, five cases without or with rare ghost cells were reclassified as AdAM. The other four cases including a higher proportion of ghost cells consisted of a mixture of DGCT and AdAM histopathologic patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed that the AdAM-like features had been largely overlooked in the diagnosis of DGCT at our institution in the past. Whilst a subset can now be more accurately classified as AdAM, some tumors showed overlapping morphological features between AdAM and DGCT, suggesting that the two may represent a spectrum of the same entity.

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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: Adenoid ameloblastoma (AdAM) is a frequently recurrent tumor that shows hybrid histological features of both ameloblastoma and adenomatoid odontogenic tumor (AOT). AdAM is expected to be classified as a new subtype of ameloblastoma in the next revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) odontogenic tumor classification. However, whether AdAM is a histologic variant of ameloblastoma or AOT remains unclear. To establish a new category, genetic evidence indicating the tumor category is necessary.
METHODS: We present a case of a 23-year-old Japanese woman with AdAM who underwent genetic/DNA analysis for ameloblastoma-related mutation using immunohistochemical staining, Sanger sequencing, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) analyses with reliable clinicopathological evidence.
RESULTS: Immunohistochemical expression of BRAF p.V600E was diffusely positive for both ameloblastoma- and AOT-like components. Sanger sequencing and NGS analyses showed missense mutations in BRAF p.V600E (c.1799T > A), a gene that is commonly altered in ameloblastomas but not in KRAS, another gene associated with AOT.
CONCLUSIONS: This case report is the first to provide genetic evidence on the ameloblastomatous origin of AdAM with a BRAF p.V600E mutation. A larger series of AdAM groups\' molecular testing is needed to aptly classify them and prognosticate the best treatment.

暂无摘要。