Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Biopsy quality is essential for preoperative prognostication in oral tongue cancer.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature303848
Source
APMIS. 2021 Mar; 129(3):118-127
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Mar-2021
Author
Ibrahim O Bello
Pia M Wennerstrand
Ilida Suleymanova
Maria Siponen
Ahmed Qannam
Pentti Nieminen
Ilmo Leivo
Alhadi Almangush
Tuula Salo
Author Affiliation
Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Source
APMIS. 2021 Mar; 129(3):118-127
Date
Mar-2021
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy - methods - standards
Child
Female
Finland
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Preoperative Period
Prognosis
Saudi Arabia
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck - diagnosis - pathology
Tongue Neoplasms - diagnosis - pathology
Young Adult
Abstract
A role for incisional biopsy in preoperative prognostication is increasingly being advocated in oral tongue squamous cell carcinomas (OTSCC). Biopsies at two locations were compared, and prognostic factors in biopsies and their corresponding resections were evaluated. A total of 138 OTSCC biopsy slides from Finland and Saudi Arabia were compared for size (horizontal and vertical) and invasive front. The Finnish cases were assessed for tumor stroma ratio (TSR) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) using light microscopy and digital image analysis assessment and compared. Furthermore, TSR, TILs, and previously analyzed budding and depth of invasion (BD) score in biopsies were compared with their evaluation in the corresponding resections. Fifty-nine percent of Finnish and 42% of Saudi Arabian biopsies were = 5 mm deep, while 98% of Saudi Arabian and 76% of Finnish biopsies were = 5 mm wide. Assessment of invasion front was possible in 72% of Finnish in comparison with 40% of Saudi Arabian biopsies. There was 86.8% agreement between TSR and 75% agreement between TIL evaluation using light microscopy and digital assessment. Significant agreement was obtained on comparing the TSR (p = 0.04) and BD (p 
PubMed ID
33320967 View in PubMed
Less detail

Comparison of histological grading methods in mucoepidermoid carcinoma of minor salivary glands.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature276920
Source
Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2016 Oct-Dec;59(4):457-462
Publication Type
Article
Author
Ahmed Qannam
Ibrahim O Bello
Source
Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2016 Oct-Dec;59(4):457-462
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Abstract
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is the most common salivary gland malignancy and its grading is greatly consequential in the management and prognosis of patients with the disease.
To compare histologic grading systems in MEC of minor salivary glands.
Two qualitative (modified Healy and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC] methods) and two quantitative (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology [AFIP] and Brandwein methods) were evaluated.
Diagnostics slides of 19 patients including one recurrent case were evaluated using the four grading systems.
Percentages and proportions were used.
Agreement across all grading system was found to be very low (32%) while there was a better agreement between AFIP and MSKCC methods (84%) between modified Healy and Brandwein (58%). The method that gave the poorest agreement with all the others was the Brandwein grading. In general, the AFIP and MSKCC methods tended to grade the tumors lower while the Brandwein and modified Healy methods seemed to grade them higher.
Most MEC of minor salivary glands appear to be low-grade tumors. It is conceivable that some grading methods (Brandwein and modified Healy) may lead to an unnecessary escalation of management methods in these tumors. The MSKCC method may have emphasized some parameters which may not have much importance in minor salivary gland MEC. The AFIP method appears to be the most appropriate to use for the grading of minor salivary gland MEC. Further studies are required to confirm or disprove this finding.
PubMed ID
27721274 View in PubMed
Less detail