2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00623.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

International collaborative study on ghost cell odontogenic tumours: calcifying cystic odontogenic tumour, dentinogenic ghost cell tumour and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
155
2
15

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(177 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
5
155
2
15
Order By: Relevance
“…5 However, in a multicentre review of ghost cell lesions, Ledesma-Montes et al found that over 85% of calcifying cystic odontogenic tumours were simple cysts occurring either alone (65%) or in association with odontomas (20%); only a few lesions showed ameloblastomatous proliferations, with merely 5% of lesions found to be solid and described as true neoplastic dentinogenic ghost cell tumours. 38 Similar results were observed by Hong et al, who found that lesions which presented as simple cysts rarely recurred and had a completely benign course. 39 Martin et al proposed that simple cystic lesions should be considered developmental cysts that may arise alone or in association with other developmental lesions, such as odontomas, whereas solid lesions showing ameloblastomatous proliferations should be regarded as neoplasms due to their high recurrence rates.…”
Section: P R I M O R D I a L O D O N T O G E N I C T U M O U Rsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…5 However, in a multicentre review of ghost cell lesions, Ledesma-Montes et al found that over 85% of calcifying cystic odontogenic tumours were simple cysts occurring either alone (65%) or in association with odontomas (20%); only a few lesions showed ameloblastomatous proliferations, with merely 5% of lesions found to be solid and described as true neoplastic dentinogenic ghost cell tumours. 38 Similar results were observed by Hong et al, who found that lesions which presented as simple cysts rarely recurred and had a completely benign course. 39 Martin et al proposed that simple cystic lesions should be considered developmental cysts that may arise alone or in association with other developmental lesions, such as odontomas, whereas solid lesions showing ameloblastomatous proliferations should be regarded as neoplasms due to their high recurrence rates.…”
Section: P R I M O R D I a L O D O N T O G E N I C T U M O U Rsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Interestingly, 87 % of their cases were classified as Type 1 or 2, lesions for which there is minimal if any evidence of neoplastic potential, and lesions that are biologically nonaggressive with a recurrence rate of around 5 % [42]. Most authorities recognize a variant of CCOT with ''ameloblastomatous-like proliferation'' in its wall or lumen and also recognize ameloblastic COC or ameloblastoma ex COC.…”
Section: The Cyst/neoplasm Interfacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…With very little evidence or justification, the WHO subsequently classified all ghost cell lesions as neoplasms and suggested calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor (CCOT) for the cystic lesions and dentinogenic ghost cell tumor for the solid variant. In 2008, an international collaborative group [42] reviewed the WHO classification of ghost cell neoplasms and suggested that further work was needed to define more precisely their biologic behavior. They divided their tumors into CCOT, DGCT and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC).…”
Section: The Cyst/neoplasm Interfacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is defined by the WHO as an odontogenic carcinoma with features of calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor (CCOT) and/or dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT) [1]. These tumors represent a heterogenous group with variable clinical and radiologic presentations as well as variable histopathologic features [30]. The initial description of this tumor was in 1985 [31].…”
Section: Ghost Cell Odontogenic Carcinomamentioning
confidence: 99%