Clínica, epidemiología e imagenología del fibroma osificante y fibroma cemento osificante: revisión de casos reportados en la literatura / Clinic, epidemiology and imagenology of the ossifying fibroma and cemento ossifying fibroma: a review of cases reported in the literature

Introducción: El fibroma osificante (FO) y el fibroma cemento osificante (FCO) son patologías distintas, que hasta el 2017 se consideraban como una. A la fecha no se han comparado las características del FO y el FCO. La presente revisión tuvo como objetivo analizar características clínicas, epidemiológicas e imagenológicas del FO y FCO en los casos publicados. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda de casos clínicos de FO y FCOpublicados desde el año 2015 en PubMed, Scopus y Web of Science, mediante la estrategia de búsqueda ("Ossifying Fibroma" OR "Cemento Ossifying Fibroma") AND (Craniofacial OR Jaws). Los casos debían presentar información clínica, imagenológica e histológica suficientes para confirmar su diagnóstico, patrón histológico y comparar sus características. Revisión: Se incluyeron 32 artículos, con 32 casos y 34 lesiones, siendo 6 FCO y 28 FO. Los FO y FCO se diferencian por su edad y ubicación: mientras los FCO se presentan en edades adultas, exclusivamente en los maxilares y en relación con tejidos dentarios, los FO lo hacen principalmente en niños y jóvenes, y en cualquier hueso. Los FO y FCO tienen las mismas características imagenológicas: son lesiones uniloculares o multiloculares, con distintos grados de radiodensidad, límites definidos y una radiolucidez periférica. Sin embargo, los casos de FO trabecular pueden no presentar esta radiolucidez periférica. Conclusión: Los FO y FCO son patologías, clínica y epidemiológicamente similares, y con las mismas características imagenológicas. Por lo que establecer diferencias histológicas es esencial para un correcto diagnóstico. (AU)

Introduction: Ossifying fibroma (OF) and cemento ossifying fibroma (COF) are different pathologies, which until 2017 where considered as one. To date, the features of OF y COF have not been compared. This aim of this review was to analyze clinical, epidemiological and imaging features of OF and COF in published case reports. Materials and methods: A search of clinical cases of OF and COF published since 2015 was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, using the search strategy ("Ossifying Fibroma" OR "Cemento Ossifying Fibroma") AND (Craniofacial OR Jaws). The cases had to haveenough clinical, imaging and histological information to confirm their clinical diagnosis, histological pattern and compare their features. Review: 32 articles were included, with 32 cases and 34 lesions, being 28 OF and 6 COF. OF and COF differ by age and location: while COF occur in adult ages, exclusively in the jaws and in relation to dental tissues, OF occur mainly in children and young people, and in any bone. OF and COF have the same imaging characteristics: they are unilocular or multilocular lesions, with different degrees of radiodensity, defined limits and a peripheral radiolucent area. However, cases of trabecular OF may not present this peripheral radiolucent area. Conclusions: OF and COF are similar pathologies clinically and epidemiologically, with the same imaging characteristics. So, establishing histological differences is essential for an accurate diagnosis. (AU)

Immunohistochemical analysis of cancer-associated fibroblasts and podoplanin in head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: To immunohistochemically evaluate the association between the presence of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and the tumour expression of podoplanin (PDPN) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and their association with clinicopathological variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) with biopsy sections from patients diagnosed with HNSCC was stained with antibodies against the CAFs marker, α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), and PDPN. We subsequently evaluated their expression to determine the association between them and with clinicopathological variables including age, primary tumour site, TNM stage, and tumour differentiation grade. RESULTS: Positive reaction to α-SMA was observed in the tumour stroma, revealing spindle-shaped cells compatible with CAFs, which showed a high expression in 62% of cases and a significant association with laryngeal carcinomas, advanced clinical stages, and lower tumour differentiation (P ≤ 0.05). PDPN staining on tumour cells showed low expression in 72% of cases, and it was not associated with any clinicopathological variable or with the presence of CAFs. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of CAFs in the tumour stroma is related to an aggressive phenotype and could increase as the disease progresses, although based on our findings, it would have no relationship, at least directly, with the expression of PDPN.