Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report
Robinson and Martinez established unicystic ameloblastoma (UA) as a distinct pathologic entity in 1977. Using their original description, the aims of this study were to compare the clinical presentation and outcomes of UA treated at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) with outcomes reported in the...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2017-11, Vol.75 (11), p.2369-2378 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2378 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 2369 |
| container_title | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery |
| container_volume | 75 |
| creator | Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique Peacock, Zachary S. Faquin, William C. Kaban, Leonard B. |
| description | Robinson and Martinez established unicystic ameloblastoma (UA) as a distinct pathologic entity in 1977. Using their original description, the aims of this study were to compare the clinical presentation and outcomes of UA treated at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) with outcomes reported in the original article.
This was a retrospective cohort study of MGH patients treated for UA during a 15-year period. Patients were included if they had a confirmed clinical and histologic diagnosis of UA. The primary predictor variable was the source of the study sample (MGH vs Robinson and Martinez). Secondary variables included age, gender, radiographic appearance, treatment, and histologic subtype. The primary outcome variable was the number of recurrences over time comparing the 2 groups.
There were 19 patients (10 female and 9 male patients) in the MGH group and 20 patients (10 female and 10 male patients) in the Robinson and Martinez study. The lesions were predominantly unilocular (13 in MGH group and 19 in Robinson and Martinez group), located in the mandible (18 in MGH group and 20 in Robinson and Martinez group), and tooth associated (12 in MGH group and 14 in Robinson and Martinez group). No statistically significant demographic differences were noted between the 2 groups. In the MGH group, 13 cases (68%) exhibited mural or intramural ameloblastic epithelium, 4 (21%) were luminal or intraluminal, and 2 were unknown. However, histologic configuration was not reported in the Robinson and Martinez group. MGH patients were treated by enucleation (n = 7, 37%) or resection (n = 12, 63%) compared with enucleation in 100% cases in the Robinson and Martinez group. Overall, the disease-free survival rate was higher in the Robinson and Martinez group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .089). Within the MGH group, 100% of recurrences occurred in patients with mural invasion treated by enucleation.
The results of this study support UA as a distinct entity based on demographic, clinical, and radiographic criteria. Outcomes in the MGH group were influenced by the degree of ameloblastic epithelial invasion and suggest that this variable should be considered when planning treatment. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.034 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1891148378</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S027823911730352X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1891148378</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64f4540153e8f4ac3aef3c3582d7c47a87191f45811e6d447eb0e948bf0a453c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFq3DAQhkVpabZJX6CHomMv3mos2daWXsKSJoWUhdCQo5DlcaPFtlyNHEiuffFq2bTHwICE9M03zM_YBxBrEFB_3q_3YaR1KaBZC5lLvWIrqCQUlajka7YSZaOLUm7ghL0j2gsBUDX1W3ZSaiWhlPWK_bmdvHuk5B0_H3EI7WAphdHyG3zw5BN2X_g2jLONnsLEQ89_WCLr7hfClIhf4oTRDvwq0OxTvuyW5MKIxO98uue76H_5KT_fhNZPB4OduqyIyU_4lIfMIaYz9qa3A-H75_OU3X67-Lm9Kq53l9-359eFk1Wdilr1qlIiL4i6V9ZJi73MX7rsGqcaqxvYQEY0ANadUg22AjdKt72wqsrkKft09M4x_F6Qkhk9ORwGO2FYyIDeACgtG53R8oi6GIgi9maOfrTx0YAwh_DN3hzCN4fwjZC5VG76-Oxf2hG7_y3_0s7A1yOAecsHj9GQ8zg57HxEl0wX_Ev-vwsdmBc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1891148378</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique ; Peacock, Zachary S. ; Faquin, William C. ; Kaban, Leonard B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique ; Peacock, Zachary S. ; Faquin, William C. ; Kaban, Leonard B.</creatorcontrib><description>Robinson and Martinez established unicystic ameloblastoma (UA) as a distinct pathologic entity in 1977. Using their original description, the aims of this study were to compare the clinical presentation and outcomes of UA treated at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) with outcomes reported in the original article.
This was a retrospective cohort study of MGH patients treated for UA during a 15-year period. Patients were included if they had a confirmed clinical and histologic diagnosis of UA. The primary predictor variable was the source of the study sample (MGH vs Robinson and Martinez). Secondary variables included age, gender, radiographic appearance, treatment, and histologic subtype. The primary outcome variable was the number of recurrences over time comparing the 2 groups.
There were 19 patients (10 female and 9 male patients) in the MGH group and 20 patients (10 female and 10 male patients) in the Robinson and Martinez study. The lesions were predominantly unilocular (13 in MGH group and 19 in Robinson and Martinez group), located in the mandible (18 in MGH group and 20 in Robinson and Martinez group), and tooth associated (12 in MGH group and 14 in Robinson and Martinez group). No statistically significant demographic differences were noted between the 2 groups. In the MGH group, 13 cases (68%) exhibited mural or intramural ameloblastic epithelium, 4 (21%) were luminal or intraluminal, and 2 were unknown. However, histologic configuration was not reported in the Robinson and Martinez group. MGH patients were treated by enucleation (n = 7, 37%) or resection (n = 12, 63%) compared with enucleation in 100% cases in the Robinson and Martinez group. Overall, the disease-free survival rate was higher in the Robinson and Martinez group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .089). Within the MGH group, 100% of recurrences occurred in patients with mural invasion treated by enucleation.
The results of this study support UA as a distinct entity based on demographic, clinical, and radiographic criteria. Outcomes in the MGH group were influenced by the degree of ameloblastic epithelial invasion and suggest that this variable should be considered when planning treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-2391</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.034</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28431236</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Ameloblastoma - pathology ; Ameloblastoma - surgery ; Child ; Cohort Studies ; Dentistry ; Female ; Hospitals, General ; Humans ; Jaw Neoplasms - pathology ; Jaw Neoplasms - surgery ; Male ; Massachusetts ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Retrospective Studies ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2017-11, Vol.75 (11), p.2369-2378</ispartof><rights>2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64f4540153e8f4ac3aef3c3582d7c47a87191f45811e6d447eb0e948bf0a453c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64f4540153e8f4ac3aef3c3582d7c47a87191f45811e6d447eb0e948bf0a453c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.034$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28431236$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Zachary S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faquin, William C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaban, Leonard B.</creatorcontrib><title>Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report</title><title>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Robinson and Martinez established unicystic ameloblastoma (UA) as a distinct pathologic entity in 1977. Using their original description, the aims of this study were to compare the clinical presentation and outcomes of UA treated at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) with outcomes reported in the original article.
This was a retrospective cohort study of MGH patients treated for UA during a 15-year period. Patients were included if they had a confirmed clinical and histologic diagnosis of UA. The primary predictor variable was the source of the study sample (MGH vs Robinson and Martinez). Secondary variables included age, gender, radiographic appearance, treatment, and histologic subtype. The primary outcome variable was the number of recurrences over time comparing the 2 groups.
There were 19 patients (10 female and 9 male patients) in the MGH group and 20 patients (10 female and 10 male patients) in the Robinson and Martinez study. The lesions were predominantly unilocular (13 in MGH group and 19 in Robinson and Martinez group), located in the mandible (18 in MGH group and 20 in Robinson and Martinez group), and tooth associated (12 in MGH group and 14 in Robinson and Martinez group). No statistically significant demographic differences were noted between the 2 groups. In the MGH group, 13 cases (68%) exhibited mural or intramural ameloblastic epithelium, 4 (21%) were luminal or intraluminal, and 2 were unknown. However, histologic configuration was not reported in the Robinson and Martinez group. MGH patients were treated by enucleation (n = 7, 37%) or resection (n = 12, 63%) compared with enucleation in 100% cases in the Robinson and Martinez group. Overall, the disease-free survival rate was higher in the Robinson and Martinez group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .089). Within the MGH group, 100% of recurrences occurred in patients with mural invasion treated by enucleation.
The results of this study support UA as a distinct entity based on demographic, clinical, and radiographic criteria. Outcomes in the MGH group were influenced by the degree of ameloblastic epithelial invasion and suggest that this variable should be considered when planning treatment.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Ameloblastoma - pathology</subject><subject>Ameloblastoma - surgery</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitals, General</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Jaw Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Jaw Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Massachusetts</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0278-2391</issn><issn>1531-5053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFq3DAQhkVpabZJX6CHomMv3mos2daWXsKSJoWUhdCQo5DlcaPFtlyNHEiuffFq2bTHwICE9M03zM_YBxBrEFB_3q_3YaR1KaBZC5lLvWIrqCQUlajka7YSZaOLUm7ghL0j2gsBUDX1W3ZSaiWhlPWK_bmdvHuk5B0_H3EI7WAphdHyG3zw5BN2X_g2jLONnsLEQ89_WCLr7hfClIhf4oTRDvwq0OxTvuyW5MKIxO98uue76H_5KT_fhNZPB4OduqyIyU_4lIfMIaYz9qa3A-H75_OU3X67-Lm9Kq53l9-359eFk1Wdilr1qlIiL4i6V9ZJi73MX7rsGqcaqxvYQEY0ANadUg22AjdKt72wqsrkKft09M4x_F6Qkhk9ORwGO2FYyIDeACgtG53R8oi6GIgi9maOfrTx0YAwh_DN3hzCN4fwjZC5VG76-Oxf2hG7_y3_0s7A1yOAecsHj9GQ8zg57HxEl0wX_Ev-vwsdmBc</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique</creator><creator>Peacock, Zachary S.</creator><creator>Faquin, William C.</creator><creator>Kaban, Leonard B.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report</title><author>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique ; Peacock, Zachary S. ; Faquin, William C. ; Kaban, Leonard B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64f4540153e8f4ac3aef3c3582d7c47a87191f45811e6d447eb0e948bf0a453c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Ameloblastoma - pathology</topic><topic>Ameloblastoma - surgery</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitals, General</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Jaw Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Jaw Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Massachusetts</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Zachary S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faquin, William C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaban, Leonard B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chouinard, Anne-Frédérique</au><au>Peacock, Zachary S.</au><au>Faquin, William C.</au><au>Kaban, Leonard B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2369</spage><epage>2378</epage><pages>2369-2378</pages><issn>0278-2391</issn><eissn>1531-5053</eissn><abstract>Robinson and Martinez established unicystic ameloblastoma (UA) as a distinct pathologic entity in 1977. Using their original description, the aims of this study were to compare the clinical presentation and outcomes of UA treated at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) with outcomes reported in the original article.
This was a retrospective cohort study of MGH patients treated for UA during a 15-year period. Patients were included if they had a confirmed clinical and histologic diagnosis of UA. The primary predictor variable was the source of the study sample (MGH vs Robinson and Martinez). Secondary variables included age, gender, radiographic appearance, treatment, and histologic subtype. The primary outcome variable was the number of recurrences over time comparing the 2 groups.
There were 19 patients (10 female and 9 male patients) in the MGH group and 20 patients (10 female and 10 male patients) in the Robinson and Martinez study. The lesions were predominantly unilocular (13 in MGH group and 19 in Robinson and Martinez group), located in the mandible (18 in MGH group and 20 in Robinson and Martinez group), and tooth associated (12 in MGH group and 14 in Robinson and Martinez group). No statistically significant demographic differences were noted between the 2 groups. In the MGH group, 13 cases (68%) exhibited mural or intramural ameloblastic epithelium, 4 (21%) were luminal or intraluminal, and 2 were unknown. However, histologic configuration was not reported in the Robinson and Martinez group. MGH patients were treated by enucleation (n = 7, 37%) or resection (n = 12, 63%) compared with enucleation in 100% cases in the Robinson and Martinez group. Overall, the disease-free survival rate was higher in the Robinson and Martinez group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .089). Within the MGH group, 100% of recurrences occurred in patients with mural invasion treated by enucleation.
The results of this study support UA as a distinct entity based on demographic, clinical, and radiographic criteria. Outcomes in the MGH group were influenced by the degree of ameloblastic epithelial invasion and suggest that this variable should be considered when planning treatment.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28431236</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.034</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0278-2391 |
| ispartof | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2017-11, Vol.75 (11), p.2369-2378 |
| issn | 0278-2391 1531-5053 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1891148378 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Ameloblastoma - pathology Ameloblastoma - surgery Child Cohort Studies Dentistry Female Hospitals, General Humans Jaw Neoplasms - pathology Jaw Neoplasms - surgery Male Massachusetts Middle Aged Neoplasm Recurrence, Local Retrospective Studies Young Adult |
| title | Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T10%3A47%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Unicystic%20Ameloblastoma%20Revisited:%20Comparison%20of%20Massachusetts%20General%20Hospital%20Outcomes%20With%20Original%20Robinson%20and%20Martinez%20Report&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oral%20and%20maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.au=Chouinard,%20Anne-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9rique&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2369&rft.epage=2378&rft.pages=2369-2378&rft.issn=0278-2391&rft.eissn=1531-5053&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.034&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1891148378%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1891148378&rft_id=info:pmid/28431236&rft_els_id=S027823911730352X&rfr_iscdi=true |