Relative frequency of intra-oral minor salivary gland tumors: a study of 380 cases from northern California and comparison to reports from other parts of the world.

BACKGROUND: The relative frequency of individual intra-oral minor salivary gland tumors (IMSGT) is not well documented in the literature. The aim of this study was to determine the relative frequency and distribution of IMSGT in an oral pathology biopsy service and to compare the data with similar studies from different parts of the world. METHODS: Files from the Pacific Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Laboratory of the University of the Pacific, San Francisco, California served as a source of material for this study. Files were systematically searched for all cases of IMSGT during a 20-year period. Tumors were classified according to the 2005 WHO classification of salivary gland tumors. RESULTS: IMSGT were identified in 380 (0.4%) cases of 92 860 accessed. This is the largest series of IMSGT from one source reported in recent years. Of the 380 tumors, 224 (59%) were benign and 156 (41%) were malignant. Of the benign tumors, pleomorphic adenoma (PA) was the most common (39.2%), followed by cystadenoma (6.3%), canalicular adenoma (6.1%), ductal papillomas (4.4%), basal cell adenoma (1.6%), and myoepithelioma (1.3%). Of the malignant tumors, mucoepidermoid carcinoma was the most common (21.8%), followed by polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma (7.1%), adenoid cystic carcinoma (6.3%), adenocarcinoma, not otherwise specified (NOS; 2.1%), acinic cell carcinoma (1.6%), clear cell carcinoma, NOS (1.0%), and carcinoma ex PA (0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies related to the relative frequency of individual IMSGTs from different parts of the world are difficult to compare because many studies are outdated, the number of cases is small, the list of tumors is limited, and new entities are not included. To determine the true relative frequency, more studies should be conducted, on a large number of cases from one source, by experienced pathologists in the field of salivary gland tumors.

Relative frequency of central odontogenic tumors: a study of 1,088 cases from Northern California and comparison to studies from other parts of the world.

PURPOSE: To determine the relative frequency of central odontogenic tumors in relation to all biopsy specimens and to one another in an oral pathology biopsy service and to compare the data with previous studies from different parts of the world. METHODS: Files from the Pacific Oral Pathology Laboratory of the University of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA served as a source of material for this study. Files were systematically searched for all cases of central (intraosseous) odontogenic tumors during a 20-year period. RESULTS: Central odontogenic tumors were identified in 1,088 (1.2%) cases out of the 91,178 accessed. Individually, of all odontogenic tumors, 75.9% were odontomas. The prevalence of the remaining tumors appears to be a rare occurrence. The second most common was ameloblastoma (11.7%), followed by odontogenic myxoma (2.2%). Odontomas are considered hamartomas or developmental anomalies. When excluded from the list of individual odontogenic tumors, ameloblastoma is the most common (48.5%), followed by odontogenic myxoma (9.2%), adenomatoid odontogenic tumor (7.3%), ameloblastic fibro-odontoma (7.3%), ameloblastic fibroma (6.5%), calcifying odontogenic cyst (6.5%), and odontogenic fibroma (6.1%). Each remaining tumor comprises less than 4%. CONCLUSIONS: Studies related to the relative frequency of individual odontogenic tumors from different parts of the world are difficult to compare because most studies are outdated, the list of tumors is limited, and new entities are not included. To determine the real relative frequency, further studies should be conducted, especially in Western societies, by experienced pathologists in the field of odontogenic tumors.

Relative frequency of peripheral odontogenic tumors: a study of 45 new cases and comparison with studies from the literature.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral (extraosseous) odontogenic tumors are rare, and reports in the literature have mainly been single case reports or a small series of cases. The aim of this study was to determine the relative frequency of peripheral (extraosseous) odontogenic tumors relative to one another and relative to their central (intraosseous) counterparts in an oral pathology biopsy service and to compare these data with information available in the literature. METHODS: The files of the Pacific Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Laboratory of the University of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, USA, served as the source of material for this study. Files were systematically searched for all cases of peripheral odontogenic tumors (POTs) during a 20-year-period. RESULTS: There were 91,178 cases accessed in which central and POTs were identified in 1,133 (1.24%), central tumors in 1,088 (1.2%), and peripheral tumors in 45 (0.05%). Peripheral tumors accounted for 4% of all 1133 central and POTs. Peripheral odontogenic fibroma (PODF) was the most common of the 45 POTs accounting for 51.1% (23 cases) followed by peripheral ameloblastoma (PA) 28.9% (13 cases) and peripheral calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor (PCCOT) 13.3% (six cases). Peripheral calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor, peripheral ameloblastic fibroma, and peripheral ameloblastic carcinoma were also identified--each comprised 2.2% (one case each). PODF was more common than its central counterpart by a 1.4:1 ratio. This was the only peripheral tumor that was more common than its central counterpart. PA accounted for 9.3% of all ameloblastomas and PCCOT for 26% of all calcifying cystic odontogenic tumors. CONCLUSION: There is only scarce information in the literature on the relative frequency of POTs. Additional studies should be conducted to determine the true relative frequency. To ensure accuracy, pathologists with experience in the field of odontogenic tumors should conduct these studies. Intraosseous tumors that perforate through the bone to the gingival tissue, clinically presenting as 'peripheral tumors' should be excluded.