Pigmented Pindborg tumor of the maxilla: A case report

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.

CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature

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.

Surgical management of a large calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor in the maxilla: A case report

INTRODUCTION

The calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT), also known as Pindborg tumor, is a locally invasive benign neoplasm. Histogenesis is controversial.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 26-year-old male presented asymptomatic swelling on the right side of the face, with approximately six months of evolution. At intraoral examination, a hard nodule localized in the right posterior region of the maxilla, measuring approximately 5.0 x 3.0 cm was observed. The computed tomography images showed hypodense lesion with points of calcification associated with two non-erupted teeth. We suspect of odontogenic lesions. The final diagnosis of CEOT was established based on the histopathological aspects.

DISCUSSION

This tumor is more frequent in adult men, usually develops in the posterior region of the mandible and may present clinical-pathological similarities with others odontogenic lesions. The radiological aspects observed in the CEOT are variable and depend on the time of evolution of the tumor. The histopathological examination is mandatory to establish the final diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Our case was treated with simple enucleation without signs of recurrence in five years of follow-up. Further studies are needed to understand the aetiology and the biological behaviour of this tumor.