Inverted Papilloma of the Middle Ear

Inoue, Rika; Kanazawa, Takeharu; Morita, Mamoru; Iino, Yukiko; Yamada, Shigeki; Ishida, Takashi

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3181d2f07e

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of previously reported sinonasal‐type papillomas of the middle ear/temporal bone represented either genuine squamous papillomas/papillary squamous carcinomas 38 or extension from sinonasal papillomas, 39 or lacked histological illustration. Very few cases seem to be identical to our Case 1, including most of the cases reported by Wenig 40 (illustrated in Figures 1 and 4 of that article) and three case reports 41–43 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Papillary‐cystic neoplasms of the middle ear are distinct from endolymphatic sac tumours

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Papillary neoplasms of the middle and inner ear are rare and poorly characterised. The current World Health Organization classification divides them into two major subtypes: aggressive papillary tumours (APTs) and endolymphatic sac tumours (ELSTs). The aim of this article is to present two papillary neoplasms of the middle ear that do not fit into either the classic APT category or the classic ELST category, and compare them with three ELSTs. Methods and results The patients were a 48‐year‐old female and a 59‐year‐old male without a history of other neoplasms. Histology showed papillary‐cystic growth of predominantly oncocytic (Case 1) or mucinous (Case 2) cells surrounded by a p63‐positive basal layer. The overall histology was reminiscent of oncocytic sinonasal papilloma (Case 1) and pancreatobiliary or salivary intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (Case 2). Ovarian‐type stroma, invasion and malignant features were absent. Immunohistochemistry revealed expression of cytokeratin (CK) 7, but not carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) or paired box gene 8 (PAX8) (except for very focal PAX8 expression in Case 1). The TST15 gene panel and HRAS sequencing revealed no pathogenic mutations in BRAF, KRAS, EGFR, AKT1, or HRAS. The TruSight RNA fusion panel revealed an MKRN1–BRAF fusion in Case 1. No fusion was detected in Case 2. The three ELSTs showed classic features of the entity, expressed CK7, epithelial membrane antigen, PAX8, and CAIX, and lacked a basal cell layer. Conclusion These novel cases suggest that papillary tumours of the ear represent a heterogeneous spectrum of distinct neoplasms unified by a prominent papillary‐cystic pattern rather than a single entity. Future studies should clarify whether the MKRN1–BRAF fusion is a defining recurrent driver event, especially in those cases reported as sinonasal‐type middle ear papillomas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Papillary‐cystic neoplasms of the middle ear are distinct from endolymphatic sac tumours

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inverted papilloma of the middle ear could arise from this ectopic migration . However, only 18 cases of inverted papilloma originating as a primary tumor in the middle ear have been published in the literature . In this study, we present a unique case of a primary inverted papilloma of the middle ear with intracranial invasion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Primary inverted papilloma of the middle ear with intracranial invasion

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there were also multiple cases that presented recurrence despite aggressive radiotherapy. [8][9][10] In 2002, Pou et al describes a case in which postoperative radiation appears to have prevented known recurrence. 11 Conflicts also exist regarding whether or not a history of sinonasal papilloma predisposes patients to more aggressive malignant forms of ear papillomas.…”

Section: Summary Of the Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%