|Year : 2021 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 99-108
Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma of anterior mandible: A rare case report with review of literature
Gopikrishnan Vijayakumar, Mala Kamboj, Anjali Narwal, Anju Devi
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Oral Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pt. BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India
|Date of Submission||09-May-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||29-Jan-2021|
|Date of Web Publication||19-Mar-2021|
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Oral Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pt. BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
A 24-year-old male reported to the outpatient department with a complaint of swelling of the anterior lower jaw region for 9 months with history of traumatic injury and extraction of teeth from the same region, a month before the onset of swelling. Swelling was obvious extra- and intraorally which on examination presented as a soft to firm non-tender and non-fluctuant mass with an approximate size of 4 cm × 3 cm, extending from 34 to 43 region with obliteration of labial vestibule. Panoramic radiograph and cone-beam computed tomography showed a well-defined radiolucency in the mandibular anterior region crossing the midline with erosion of labial bony plates and root of 42 along with a tooth-like radiopaque mass within the lesion. Provisional diagnoses of odontogenic keratocyst, ameloblastomas, central giant cell granuloma and calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor were listed. The histopathological and immunohistochemical examination of lesion followed by the biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma.
Keywords: Dentinogenic ghost cell tumor, ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma, ghost cells
|How to cite this article:|
Vijayakumar G, Kamboj M, Narwal A, Devi A. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma of anterior mandible: A rare case report with review of literature. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2021;25, Suppl S1:99-108
|How to cite this URL:|
Vijayakumar G, Kamboj M, Narwal A, Devi A. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma of anterior mandible: A rare case report with review of literature. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 18];25, Suppl S1:99-108. Available from: https://www.jomfp.in/text.asp?2021/25/4/99/311542
| Introduction|| |
Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC) is a rare malignancy of odontogenic epithelium described first by Ikemura et al. in 1985. The origin of GCOC is thought to be either de novo (55% cases) or may arise from a preexisting tumor (45% cases) like calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor (CCOT) or from dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT). The progression and aggressiveness of GCOT is uncertain as it may vary from a slow growing mass to rapid destructive lesion. It constitutes about 0.37% to 2.1% of all odontogenic tumors., Entities such as CCOT and DGCT manifest similar clinical and radiological criteria as that of GCOC making the diagnosis challenging. In literature till date only few cases of GCOT have been reported. Here we report a case of GCOC with the clinical, radiological, histopathological and immunohistochemical features along with detailed review of literature.
| Case Report|| |
A 24-year-old male reported to the outpatient department with complaint of swelling of the anterior lower jaw region for 9 months. He had a history of traumatic injury and extraction of teeth from the same region around a month before the onset of swelling [Figure 1]a.
|Figure 1: Clinical presentation of present case (a): Swelling of the anterior lower jaw region (b): Intraoral swelling with obliteration of labial vestibule (c): Intraoral swelling with site of incision biopsy|
Click here to view
Personal and family history
The personal and family history was not relatable to the present condition.
Extraoral examination revealed a single large asymptomatic firm swelling approximately measuring 4 cm × 4 cm in the mandibular midline. The overlying skin showed scar of the previous trauma. Intraorally, the swelling was soft to firm, nontender and nonfluctuant of approximate size 4 cm × 3 cm, extending from 34 to 43 region with obliteration of labial vestibule [Figure 1]b and [Figure 1]c. The mucosal surface was normal in color without signs of any drainage. Anterior mandibular teeth 41, 31, 32 and 33 were missing due to previous trauma while 42 showed grade II mobility.
Orthopantomogram (OPG) showed well-defined unilocular radiolucency in the mandibular anterior region crossing the midline and root resorption of 42 along with a tooth-like radiopaque mass within the lesion [Figure 2]a. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) showed a round unilocular lesion with complete destruction of labial bony plate and irregular resorption front towards lingual side [Figure 2]b. Non uniform resorption of bone and a tooth-like calcification was evident in the 3D reconstruction image of CBCT [Figure 2]c.
|Figure 2: Radiograph of present case (a): Orthopathamogram showing well-defined unilocular radiolucency in the mandibular anterior region crossing the midline and root resorption of 42 along with a tooth-like radiopaque mass within the lesion (b): Cone-beam computed tomography showing round unilocular lesion with complete destruction of labial bony plate and irregular resorption front towards lingual side (c): Three-dimensional reconstruction of cone-beam computed tomography showing non uniform resorption of bone and a tooth-like calcification|
Click here to view
The routine blood examinations showed no alterations.
The thick yellow fluid discharge at the time of incision biopsy on H&E-stained smear showed population of large oval to round cells with vesicular as well as hyperchromatic nuclei within a background of red blood cells.
Microscopically, unencapsulated sheets of proliferating odontogenic epithelial cells were seen with a dual cellular pattern. Few cells were round to ovoid with eosinophilic cytoplasm and hyperchromatic nuclei and the other composed of basaloid cells with pale cytoplasm and large vesicular hyperchromatic nuclei [Figure 3]a, [Figure 3]b, [Figure 3]c. Areas of calcifications were seen close to few tumor islands and within the ghost cell clusters [Figure 3]d. The tumor cells showed extensive nuclear and cellular pleomorphism, cellular atypia and increased mitotic figures (>6/HPF) [Figure 4]a, [Figure 4]b, [Figure 4]c. Features of ghost cell keratiniation were evident at many focuses as large round pale eosinophilic malignant epithelial cells which lack nuclear features [Figure 3]c and [Figure 4]d. Multinucleated giant cells were evident at places were the ghost cell interacted with overlying connective tissue stroma [Figure 5]a. The possibility of any odontogenic cyst, COC, ameloblastomas and calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT) were ruled out narrowing down the differential diagnosis to GCOC and DGCT. The presences of dentinoid in such calcifications were ruled out using Van Gieson's staining [Figure 5]b. Subsequent immunohistochemical examination using Ki67 (>60%) [Figure 5]c showed a high malignant potential of tumor while higher p53 expression, [Figure 5]d both favored a malignant ghost cell lesion the GCOC over the benign DGCT. Correlating the clinical, radiological, histopathological and IHC expressions the final diagnosis was GCOC.
|Figure 3: Photomicrograph of present case showing, (a): unencapsulated sheets of proliferating odontogenic epithelial cells in fibro cellular stroma (×40) (b): proliferating sheets of odontogenic epithelial cells (×100) (c): Tumor Island showing ghost cell changes and clusters of Ghost cells (×100) (d): Ghost cell changes and calcifications close to the tumor island (×100)|
Click here to view
|Figure 4: Photomicrograph showing (a): pleomorphism of cells within the tumor island (population of cells with vesicular nuclei and round to oval hyperchromatic nuclei with scanty cytoplasm) (×200) (b): Tumor Island with peripheral columnar cells having vesicular nuclei and absence of ameloblastomas like areas (×400) (c): Abnormal mitotic figures (>6/HPF) (×400) (d): cluster of eosinophilic cells with lack of nuclear detail (Ghost cell keratinization) (×400)|
Click here to view
|Figure 5: Photomicrograph showing (a): Giant cell reaction within the connective tissue in reaction to the ghost cells (×200) (b): Van Gieson's stain to differentiate calcification from dentinoid material, ghost cells (yellow) and collagen (×200) (c): Ki67 expression in epithelial cells within tumor island (>60%) (×200) (d): Strong p53 expression within epithelial tumor island (×200)|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
The calcifying odontogenic cyst (COC), DGCT and GCOC makes up a spectrum of lesions characterized by odontogenic epithelium with ghost cell keratinization and calcifications. The cystic entity among these known as COC also known as Gorlin cyst, first identified by Gorlin in 1962 and was considered a nonneoplastic cyst. In 1981, Praetorius et al. classified COCs into cystic and neoplastic (solid) types. In the new 4th edition of the WHO classification 2017, the consensus group reverted the terminology and mentioned the cyst as calcifying odontogenic cyst and the neoplasm as DGCT. The malignant variant of with features of one or both of these lesions where termed GCOC.,
GCOC is an extremely rare malignant odontogenic tumor with only 50 cases reported in literature till date with histopathological evidence [Table 1]. This appears to be more common in Asian population with a male predilection (male:female ratio of 3.4:1)., The age of occurrence is variable from 10 to 89 but with a peak incidence in the fourth decade of life (mean age-43.4 years). GCOC occurs more frequently in the maxilla than the mandible with a usual presentation of a painful swelling with local paresthesias. Of the 51 cases reviewed, 31 cases (62%) were in maxilla and 19 (38%) in mandible. The size of swelling is variable from 3 mm to a maximum of 10 cm with local destructive features. Most cases showed recurrence at least once and few were with multiple recurrences as well as distant metastasis. Few cases were severe enough to lead to death of patient all of which denotes the malignant potential of the tumor. The consolidated data of literature till date is tabulated in [Table 2].
|Table 1: List of case reports on ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma with its significant features|
Click here to view
|Table 2: Consolidated data after reviewing literature of case reports of ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma|
Click here to view
GCOC can appear as either “de novo” or as malignant transformation of a preexisting COC, CCOT, DGCT or other odontogenic tumors.,, A careful patient history and clinical data is mandatory to ensure the origin of GCOC. In literature 28 cases found to be de novo in origin whereas 15 cases had previous history of ghost cell lesion spectrum COC, CCOT or DGCT. Three cases had history of ameloblastoma where as a non odontogenic cyst and CEOT constituted one each.,, One case reported recurrent maxillary GCOC with suspected cholesterol granuloma of the maxillary sinus, which was improperly diagnosed as CEOT [Table 2]. In our case, history from the patient was inconclusive as the patient has not undergone any examination and related investigations for a similar lesion in the same site before the trauma. We assume that the trauma may have aggravated a preexisting lesion but lack of histopathological evidence of such a lesion concludes the origin to be de novo.
GCOC in most cases shows a mixed radiolucent and radiopaque pattern with poorly defined borders, with or without root resorption and tooth displacement. The radiographic differential diagnosis thus can include other mixed tumors such as a malignant bone tumor (osteosarcoma) or other odontogenic tumors (ameloblastomas, CEOT). Of the 51 cases reviewed, 45 cases reported radiographic features. Most cases had OPG and CT findings while 4 cases had positron emission tomography (PET) scan findings. Few cases had radiographic details of unspecified imaging modality. Most cases were radiolucent lesions to mixed radiolucent–radiopaque lesions while few were radiopaque. Four cases reported with computed tomography CT) scan image revealed hypermetabolic lesion [Table 2]. However, radiographic features of GCOC are not specific and only a differential diagnosis of possible malignant tumors.
According to the 2017 World Health Organization guidelines the diagnosis of GCOC is purely dependent on the histological examination of the tumor. This guideline is followed for the diagnosis of GCOC as well as to rule out its histological differential diagnosis DGCT [Table 3]., The histological features mainly include groups of ghost cells, necrosis, prominent mitoses, infiltrative growth pattern and aggressive behavior. The accurate diagnosis of GCOC requires extensive sampling of the specimen as the features of malignancy can be focal and the other areas may show benign histology. Two cases reported as GCOC in in literature was avoided from the data as the histopathological features did not show any features of malignancy to be diagnoses as GCOC.
|Table 3: Diagnostic criteria of ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma in comparison to dentinogenic ghost cell tumor according to the World Health Organization|
Click here to view
The use of various special stains are reported in demonstrating ghost cells and differentiating dentinoid material in ghost cell lesions In a study by Sun ZJ elt al the ghost cells were stained red and the dentinoid material was stained blue by Heidenhain–Azan stain. The individual cell disintegration (ghost cell keratinization), extracellular amorphous eosinophilic material (dentinoid) and calcifications can be distinguished by Van Gieson's stain. The stain differentiates the dentinoid (pink) with ghost cells (yellow), collagen and other calcifications.
The immunohistochemical analysis of GCOCs was first described by Scott and Wood proving the epithelial origin by a positive anti-cytokeratin expression. Folpe et al. studied extensively on immunohistochemical expression of the tumor and reported that it had epithelial characteristics with squamoid differentiation. According to their study GCOC showed high reactivity for high and low molecular weight cytokeratin, carcinoembryonic antigen, mild reactivity for vimentin, low immunoreactivity for proliferating cell nuclear antigen and no immunohistochemical evidence of p53 overexpression. Later, in study by Lu et al. three cases expressed high molecular weight keratin but were negative for CEA, vimentin, S-100 and synaptophysin and showed variable staining for neuron-specific enolase. However, the proliferation index, as assessed by p53 and Ki67 staining showed higher positive expression. The pleomorphic tumor cells were focally positive, and nucleated cells adjacent to the ghost cells were positive for cytokeratins and involucrin. Bcl-2 immunostaining was found negative whereas Bcl-XL was demonstrated in malignant epithelial cells but ghost cells were faintly positive for Bcl-XL. Bax positivity was expressed in ghost cells and in nucleated cells adjacent to ghost cells, but it was not found in pleomorphic tumor cells. Nucleated cells immediately adjacent to ghost cells and pleomorphic epithelial cells had a positive reaction in Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP-biotin nick-end labeling assay used to detect cells undergoing apoptosis. In a study by Roh et al. the osteoclast-related cytokines, Tartrate resistant acid phosphatase and vitronectin receptor were detected in the ghost cells, but they were not expressed in the tumor cells. Recent studies reported higher number of malignant epithelial cells expressing cytokeratin, Ki-67 and p53.,,,,,, In cases reported by Zhu et al. the positive expression rate of Ki-67 was 61.8% which indicates that cell proliferation activity is significantly higher. Only a few ghost cells were positive for MMP-9 while all were negative for Ki-67. In one study, tumor cells were positive for cytokeratin and p63 and were negative for TTF1 and CK7. Expression of Syndcan-1 was also observed in one study in which it was frequently expressed in the cells resembling the stellate reticulum and ameloblastomatous proliferation but the stromal cells were negative for Syndecan-1.
Gene alterations in GCOC were first studied and reported by Rappaport et al. Mutation of the β-catenin gene was noted at codons 33. They also reported of three genomic alterations: CTNNB1 S33C, CREBBP K1741* and MLL2 S1997fs*44. An extensive integrative genomic and transcriptomic analysis of GCOC studied by Bose et al. reported numerous genomic alterations. There was homozygous deletion of RB1 locus, homozygous frame shift mutation in APC gene and also a novel fusion involving the TCF4 and PTPRG genes. They also observed several alterations in the Sonic Hedge Hog gene (SHH) pathway including copy number gains in SHH and GLI1 genes accompanied by increased expression of these genes. However, the exact genetic background of the tumor is yet to be established by further studies.
Recurrence, metastasis and survival
A recurrence rate of 63.4% has been reported in literature. The prognosis shows a 5-year survival rate of 73%., GCOC being a rare and unpredictable odontogenic malignancy, long-term surveillance of patients is mandatory as metastasis to distant sites has been reported. In literature review of 51 cases, 13 cases showed no recurrence after surgical excision but 18 cases had local recurrence once after initial treatment and 9 cases had multiple recurrence. Five cases showed distant metastasis, and in seven cases, tumor leads to death of patients [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Declaration of patient consent
The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient (s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initial s will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Ikemura K, Horie A, Tashiro H, Nandate M. Simultaneous occurrence of a calcifying odontogenic cyst and its malignant transformation. Cancer 1985;56:2861-4.
Jia MQ, Jia J, Wang L, Zou HX. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma of the jaws: Report of two cases and a literature review. World J Clin Cases 2019;7:357-65.
Goldenberg D, Sciubba J, Tufano RP. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2004;26:378-81.
Remya K, Sudha S, Nair RG, Jyothi H. An unusual presentation of ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma: A case report with review of literature. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29:238-43.
] [Full text]
Gorlin RJ, Pindborg JJ, Odont , Clausen FP, Vickers RA. The calcifying odontogenic – A cysta possible analogue of the cutaneous calcifying epithelioma of Malherbe. An analysis of fifteen cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1962;15:1235-43.
Praetorius F, Hjørting-Hansen E, Gorlin RJ, Vickers RA. Calcifying odontogenic cyst. Range, variations and neoplastic potential. Acta Odontol Scand 1981;39:227-40.
Speight PM, Takata T. New tumour entities in the 4th
edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Head and Neck tumours: Odontogenic and maxillofacial bone tumours. Virchows Arch 2018;472:331-9.
El-Naggar AK, Chan JK, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ, editors. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Head and Neck. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2017. p. 203-60.
Ellis GL, Shmookler BM. Aggressive (malignant?) epithelial odontogenic ghost cell tumor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986;61:471-8.
Grodjesk JE, Dolinsky HB, Schneider LC, Dolinsky EH, Doyle JL. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987;63:576-81.
Scott J, Wood GD. Aggressive calcifying odontogenic cyst – A possible variant of ameloblastoma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;27:53-9.
McCoy BP, O Carroll MK, Hall JM. Carcinoma arising in a dentinogenic ghost cell tumor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;74:371-8.
Dubiel-Bigaj M, Olszewski E, Stachura J. The malignant form of calcifying odontogenic cyst. A case report. Patol Pol 1993;44:39-41.
Siar CH, Ng KH. Aggressive (malignant?) epithelial odontogenic ghost cell tumour of the maxilla. J Laryngol Otol 1994;108:269-71.
Alcalde RE, Sasaki A, Misaki M, Matsumura T. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: Report of a case and review of the literature. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:108-11.
Folpe AL, Tsue T, Rogerson L, Weymuller E, Oda D, True LD. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: A case report with immunohistochemical and ultrastructural characterization. J Oral Pathol Med 1998;27:185-9.
Castle JT, Arendt DM. Aggressive (malignant) epithelial odontogenic ghost cell tumor. Ann Diagn Pathol 1999;3:243-8.
Kamijo R, Miyaoka K, Tachikawa T, Nagumo M. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: Report of a case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:1266-70.
Lu Y, Mock D, Takata T, Jordan RC. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: Report of four new cases and review of the literature. J Oral Pathol Med 1999;28:323-9.
Kim J, Lee EH, Yook JI, Han JY, Yoon JH, Ellis GL. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: A case report with reference to the relation between apoptosis and ghost cells. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90:630-5.
Kasahara K, Iizuka T, Kobayashi I, Totsuka Y, Kohgo T. A recurrent case of odontogenic ghost cell tumour of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:684-7.
Cheng Y, Long X, Li X, Bian Z, Chen X, Yang X. Clinical and radiological features of odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: Review of the literature and report of four new cases. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:152-7.
Nazaretian SP, Schenberg ME, Simpson I, Slootweg PJ. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:455-8.
Sun ZJ, Zhao YF, Zhang L, Li ZB, Chen XM, Zhang WF. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma in the maxilla: A case report and literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1820-4.
Roh GS, Jeon BT, Park BW, Kim DR, Hah YS, Kim JH, et al
. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma of the mandible: A case report demonstrating expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) and vitronectin receptor. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 2008;36:419-23.
Li BB, Gao Y. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma transformed from a dentinogenic ghost cell tumor of maxilla after multiple recurrences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:691-5.
Motosugi U, Ogawa I, Yoda T, Abe T, Sugasawa M, Murata SI, et al
. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma arising in calcifying odontogenic cyst. Ann Diagn Pathol 2009;13:394-7.
Slama A, Boujelbène N, Yacoub LB, Trabelsi A, Khochtali H, Sriha B. Carcinome odontogénique à cellules fantômes de la mandibule. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 2010;111:158-61. Doi: 10.1016 / j.stomax.2010.02.003.
Li BH, Cho YA, Kim SM, Kim MJ, Hong SP, Lee JH. Recurrent odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma (OGCC) at a reconstructed fibular flap: A case report with immunohistochemical findings. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e651-6.
Arashiyama T, Kodama Y, Kobayashi T, Hoshina H, Takagi R, Hayashi T, et al
. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma arising in the background of a benign calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor of the mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:e35-40.
Zhu ZY, Chu ZG, Chen Y, Zhang WP, Lv D, Geng N, et al
. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma arising from calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor: A case report. Korean J Pathol 2012;46:478-82.
Wader J, Gajbi N. Neoplastic (solid) calcifying ghost cell tumor, intraosseous variant: Report of a rare case and review of literature. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7:1999-2000.
Martos-Fernández M, Alberola-Ferranti M, Hueto-Madrid JA, Bescós-Atín C. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma: A rare case report and review of literature. J Clin Exp Dent 2014;6:e602-6.
Del Corso G, Tardio ML, Gissi DB, Marchetti C, Montebugnoli L, Tarsitano A. Ki-67 and p53 expression in ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma: A case report and literature review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;19:85-9.
Fitzpatrick SG, Hirsch SA, Listinsky CM, Lyu DJ, Baur DA. Ameloblastic carcinoma with features of ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma in a patient with suspected Gardner syndrome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;119:e241-5.
Ali EA, Ali karrar M, El-Siddig AA, Gafer N, Abdel Satir A. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma of the maxilla: A case report with a literature review. Pan Afr Med J 2015;21:260.
Ismerim AB, Fernandes AG, Loyola AM, Dos Santos JN. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma in the anterior mandible: Case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;120:e46.
Rappaport MJ, Showell DL, Edenfield WJ. Metastatic ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma: Description of a case and search for actionable targets. Rare Tumors 2015;7:96-7.
Sukumaran R, Somanathan T, Kattoor J. Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma with pulmonary metastasis. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2015;19:371-4.
] [Full text]
Ahmed SK, Watanabe M, deMello DE, Daniels TB. Pediatric metastatic odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma: A multimodal treatment approach. Rare Tumors 2015;7:73-5.
Gomes JP, Costa AL, Chone CT, Altemani AM, Altemani JM, Lima CS. Three-dimensional volumetric analysis of ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma using 3-D reconstruction software: A case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017;123:e170-5.
Namana M, Majumdar S, Uppala D, Avv A, Rao AK. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma arising denovo with distant metastasis: A case report and review of literature. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:ZD01-3.
Miwako S, Hiroto I, Takahumi N, Junichi H, Tadahide N, Yoshinori J, et al
. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma transformed from dentinogenic ghost cell tumor of the maxilla after recurrences. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol 2017;29:438-42.
Park SY, Park J, Kwon DH, Kim SM, Myoung H, Lee JH. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma on right mandible and its respective surgical reconstruction: A case report. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;43:415-22.
Ohata Y, Kayamori K, Yukimori A, Sumikura K, Ohsako T, Harada H, et al
. A lesion categorized between ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma and dentinogenic ghost cell tumor with CTNNB1 mutation. Pathol Int 2018;68:307-12.
Qin Y, Lu Y, Zheng L, Liu H. Ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma with suspected cholesterol granuloma of the maxillary sinus in a patient treated with combined modality therapy: A case report and the review of literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Feb;97(7):e9816. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009816.
de Arruda JAA, Monteiro JLGC, Abreu LG, de Oliveira Silva LV, Schuch LF, de Noronha MS, et al
. Calcifying odontogenic cyst, dentinogenic ghost cell tumor, and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma: A systematic review. J Oral Pathol Med 2018;47:721-30.
da Silva WG, dos Santos TC, Cabral MG, Azevedo RS, Pires FR. Clinicopathologic analysis and syndecan-1 and Ki-67 expression in calcifying cystic odontogenic tumors, dentinogenic ghost cell tumor, and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014;117:626-33.
Bose P, Pleasance ED, Jones M, Shen Y, Ch'ng C, Reisle C, et al
. Integrative genomic analysis of ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2015;51:e71-5.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|This article has been cited by|
||A novel parotid carcinoma with a prominent ghost cell population: a masquerading tumor or “salivary ghost cell carcinoma”?
| ||Hiroshi Harada, Mitsuo P. Sato, Naoki Otsuki, Mao Kawamura, Akira Kurose, Takao Satou |
| ||Medical Molecular Morphology. 2021; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Malignant Odontogenic Tumours: A Systematic Review of Cases Reported in Literature
| ||Constanza Marin, Manas Dave, Keith D. Hunter |
| ||Frontiers in Oral Health. 2021; 2 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|