Metastasising ameloblastoma or ameloblastic carcinoma? A case report with mutation analyses.

BACKGROUND: Ameloblastic carcinoma and metastasising ameloblastoma are rare epithelial odontogenic tumours with aggressive features. Distinguishing between these two lesions is often clinically difficult but necessary to predict tumour behaviour or to plan future therapy. Here, we provide a brief review of the literature available on these two types of lesions and present a new case report of a young man with an ameloblastoma displaying metastatic features. We also use this case to illustrate the similarities and differences between these two types of tumours and the difficulties of their differential diagnosis. CASE PRESENTATION: Our histopathological analyses uncovered a metastasising tumour with features of ameloblastic carcinoma, which developed from the ameloblastoma. We profiled the gene expression of Wnt pathway members in ameloblastoma sample of this patient, because multiple molecules of this pathway are involved in the establishing of cell polarity, cell migration or for epithelial-mesenchymal transition during tumour metastasis to evaluate features of tumor behaviour. Indeed, we found upregulation of several cell migration-related genes in our patient. Moreover, we uncovered somatic mutation BRAF p.V600E with known pathological role in cancerogenesis and germline heterozygous FANCA p.S858R mutation, whose interpretation in this context has not been discussed yet. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have uncovered a unique case of ameloblastic carcinoma associated with an alteration of Wnt signalling and the presence of BRAF mutation. Development of harmful state of our patient might be also supported by the germline mutation in one FANCA allele, however this has to be confirmed by further analyses.

Negative pressure therapy in the orofacial region in oncological patients - two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds and their problematic healing is a widely discussed topic in all branches of medicine. In recent years, vacuum therapy appears to be a very successful non-invasive method supporting the healing of these wounds. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the possibility of utilizing a vacuum system in the orofacial area where other conservative and surgical procedures have failed. CASES: The case reports demonstrate the use of vacuum therapy in non-healing postoperative wounds in cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Vacuum therapy has limited use in the orofacial area, but based on our experience, we can conclude that it has a very positive effect on the healing of chronic wounds. Thanks to this treatment, it was possible to reduce the frequency of dressings and significantly shorten the length of hospital stay. Despite these advantages, however, it is necessary to adhere to the conditions for the application of vacuum treatment.

Hyperfractionated stereotactic reirradiation for recurrent head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of hyperfractionated stereotactic reirradiation (re-RT) as a treatment for inoperable, recurrent, or second primary head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) that is not suitable for systemic treatment. PATIENTS AND MATERIALS: Forty patients with recurrent or second primary HNSCC were included in this study. The patients had a median gross tumor volume of 76 ml (range 14-193 ml) and a previous radiotherapy dose greater than 60 Gy. Treatment was designed to cover 95 % of the planning target volume (PTV, defined as gross tumor volume [GTV] + 3 mm to account for microscopic spreading, with no additional set-up margin) with the prescribed dose (48 Gy in 16 fractions b.i.d.). Treatment was administered twice daily with a minimum 6 h gap. Uninvolved lymph nodes were not irradiated. RESULTS: Treatment was completed as planned for all patients (with median duration of 11 days, range 9-14 days). Acute toxicity was evaluated using the RTOG/EORTC scale. A 37 % incidence of grade 3 mucositis was observed, with recovery time of ≤ 4 weeks for all of these patients. Acute skin toxicity was never observed to be higher than grade 2. Late toxicity was also evaluated according to the RTOG/EORTC scale. Mandible radionecrosis was seen in 4 cases (10 %); however, neither carotid blowout syndrome nor other grade 4 late toxicity occurred. One-year overall survival (OS) and local progression-free survival (L-PFS) were found to be 33 and 44 %, respectively. Performance status and GTV proved to be significant prognostic factors regarding local control and survival. CONCLUSION: Hyperfractionated stereotactic re-RT is a reasonable treatment option for patients with recurrent/second primary HNSCC who were previously exposed to high-dose irradiation and who are not candidates for systemic treatment or hypofractionation.