Oncogenic Pathways in Maxillofacial Neoplasms That Differ From Other Topographies: Implications for Therapeutic and Prognostic Outcomes

A special issue of Journal of Molecular Pathology (ISSN 2673-5261).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 July 2023) | Viewed by 3263

Special Issue Editor

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The molecular advances in characterizing emerging maxillofacial lesions (e.g., ameloblastic fibrosarcoma and SWI/SNF-deficient head and neck carcinomas) have opened new venues for affecting new anti-angiogenic agents, tailored agents, and checkpoint inhibitors. Topographically, primary intraosseous rhabdomyosarcoma, gnathic ossifying fibroma, and adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC), among others, have evinced molecular peculiarities found only in the maxillofacial region. Interestingly, the detection of ghost cells in neoplastic lesions is no longer confined to dentinogenic ghost cell tumors and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma. Nevertheless, ghost cells detected in a salivary-type neoplasm that is atypical of parenchymatous structures have resulted in the proposal of salivary ghost cell carcinoma. This lesion showed a specific molecular and immunohistochemical profile. Significantly, KMT2D-deficient adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC) in the maxillofacial region has not been studied. However, atypical cases of AdCC have been found in the sinonasal area and minor salivary glands but were not present in other organs. Low- and high-grade ASC cases have been identified in breast pathology, while only high-grade ASC cases have been found in the maxillofacial area. 

The presence of non-native cellular populations in maxillofacial neoplasms (such as Merkel cells, rhabdoid cells, ghost cells) and the detection of conspicuous unusual histologic features (such as mucinous differentiation, neuroendocrine differentiation, sebaceous differentiation, signet-ring cell differentiation, pseudo/glandular differentiation, cartilaginous differentiation, sclerosis, hyalinization, and tumor-associated lymphoid proliferation) have been acknowledged to affect the neoplasms’ clinical behavior more than their conventional counterparts. For example, pseudoglandular differentiation in ameloblastoma has been associated with aggressive clinical behavior and potentially malignant transformation. Rhabdoid cells with a less favorable prognosis than conventional phenotypes have been found in salivary-type intraductal and myoepithelial carcinomas. The molecular signature of such atypical features highlights specific genetic mutations with practical therapeutic and prognostic implications. Although breast, renal, lung, and pancreatic cancer research has considered such features, little is known about their counterparts in maxillofacial regions. 

Thus, several questions about the possibility of wiring particular molecular pathways specific to the maxillofacial regions have been raised: Do some maxillofacial neoplasms not intersect with their counterparts in other topographies? Are there histogenetically similar neoplasms that can indicate diverse prognoses at different sites in the maxillofacial area (e.g., minor salivary glands of the palate vs. minor salivary glands of the tongue)? Why is there no extra-gnathic mucoepidermoid carcinoma? 

Therefore, we confine the scope of this Special Issue to exploring oncogenic pathways in maxillofacial neoplasms that differ from other topographies and could directly impact the prognostication and therapeutic interventions. The following topics are highly solicited: 

  • Molecular specificities in hybrid odontogenic tumors;
  • KMT2D-deficient adenoid cystic carcinoma in the maxillofacial region;
  • BAP1, PI3kCA and SOX2 detection in gnathic mucoepidermoid carcinoma;
  • Sclerosing vs. non-sclerosing odontogenic tumors;
  • Prognostic value of sebaceous differentiation and/or clear-cell differentiation in odontogenic and salivary-type neoplasms;
  • Molecular profile of Pindborg tumor;
  • KRAS mutations in ameloblastic fibrosarcoma, adenomatoid odontogenic tumor and adenoid ameloblastoma;
  • Synchronous multifocal maxillofacial neoplasms. 

We encourage all contributors to place their relevant research articles in our forthcoming issue.

Dr. Bacem Khalele
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Molecular Pathology is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

11 pages, 2349 KiB  
Article
Activating Transcription Factor 1 (ATF1) Immunohistochemical Marker Distinguishes HCCC from MEC
by Wafaey Badawy, Asmaa S. Abdelfattah and Haneen A. Sallam
J. Mol. Pathol. 2023, 4(3), 178-188; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmp4030016 - 01 Aug 2023
Viewed by 1106
Abstract
The study aimed to compare 15 cases of mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) and 15 cases of hyalinizing clear cell carcinoma (HCCC) using immunohistochemical staining and molecular analysis. Thirty samples were examined, and markers, including p63, CK5/6, SOX10, CK7, ATF1, and FISH probes specific to [...] Read more.
The study aimed to compare 15 cases of mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) and 15 cases of hyalinizing clear cell carcinoma (HCCC) using immunohistochemical staining and molecular analysis. Thirty samples were examined, and markers, including p63, CK5/6, SOX10, CK7, ATF1, and FISH probes specific to EWSR1 and MAML2, were used. Clear cell differentiation was observed in all MEC cases to some extent, with clear cell MEC showing the most prominent findings. Clear cell features were also present in conventional MEC, oncocytic MEC, and Warthin-like MEC, although to a lesser extent. The majority of cases were classified as low-grade MECs. MAML2 rearrangement was detected in all cases (except cases 11 and 14), while EWSR1 rearrangement was observed in a single case of clear cell MEC. These findings helped identify distinct subtypes within the mucoepidermoid carcinoma spectrum. The study emphasized the importance of utilizing immunohistochemical profiles, histopathological features, and molecular analysis for accurate diagnosis and classification of salivary gland neoplasms. HCCC was also discussed, and ATF1 was proposed as a marker to distinguish HCCC from morphologically similar neoplasms. The study concluded that a comprehensive approach combining immunohistochemistry, histopathology, and clinical correlation is essential for accurate diagnosis and classification, considering the variable expression of markers and potential overlap with other tumor types. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 4110 KiB  
Article
Sinonasal Hyalinizing Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Is Molecularly Different from Its Salivary and Breast Counterparts
by Ebtissam Alerraqi, Essam Mandour and Mariz Faltas
J. Mol. Pathol. 2023, 4(2), 89-98; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmp4020010 - 15 May 2023
Viewed by 1571
Abstract
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC) is known to behave differently based on its location, histologic features, and molecular profile. Despite this understanding, efforts to use these molecular findings to develop personalized treatments have not yet been successful. The purpose of this retrospective study is [...] Read more.
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC) is known to behave differently based on its location, histologic features, and molecular profile. Despite this understanding, efforts to use these molecular findings to develop personalized treatments have not yet been successful. The purpose of this retrospective study is to examine the molecular characteristics of AdCC with various histologic features in three different locations. A reference group of 20 classic cribriform AdCC cases from the parotid gland was included, along with 10 salivary AdCCs (Group 1), 10 sinonasal AdCCs with hyalinization (Group 2), and 10 solid mammary AdCCs with basaloid features (Group 3). Tissue samples were processed and tested using various molecular techniques, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the different groups. Molecular data were obtained for both common and rare cases of sinonasal, salivary, and mammary AdCCs, revealing differences in molecular features depending on the tumor’s location. The molecular profile of the AdCCs in the experimental group varied depending on the site, with MYB gene rearrangements being common in all cases. We report the first MYB::KMT2C/D fusions in a subset of salivary AdCCs and sinonasal AdCCs but not in mammary adenoid cystic carcinoma with basaloid features. We conclude that co-occurring genetic alterations may vary among different sites and may have implications for the prognosis and treatment plan of AdCC. More research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms of KMT2C and KMT2D mutations in the development and progression of head and neck cancer, including their interactions with the NOTCH pathway. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop