TY - JOUR
T1 - Ossifying fibroma vs fibrous dysplasia of the jaw
T2 - Molecular and immunological characterization
AU - Toyosawa, Satoru
AU - Yuki, Michiko
AU - Kishino, Mitsunobu
AU - Ogawa, Yuzo
AU - Ueda, Takafumi
AU - Murakami, Shumei
AU - Konishi, Eiichi
AU - Iida, Seiji
AU - Kogo, Mikihiko
AU - Komori, Toshihisa
AU - Tomita, Yasuhiko
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by Grant-in-aid 17390484 and 18659539 from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, and the 21st Century COE Program.
PY - 2007/3
Y1 - 2007/3
N2 - Ossifying fibroma and fibrous dysplasia of the jaw are maxillofacial fibro-osseous lesions that should be distinguished each other by a pathologist because they show distinct patterns of disease progression. However, both lesions often show similar histological and radiological features, making distinction between the two a diagnostic dilemma. In this study, we performed immunological and molecular analyses of five ossifying fibromas, four cases of extragnathic fibrous dysplasia, and five cases of gnathic fibrous dysplasia with typical histological and radiographic features. First, we examined the difference between fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma in the expression of Runx2 (which determined osteogenic differentiation from mesenchymal stem cells) and other osteogenic markers. Fibroblastic cells in fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma showed strong Runx2 expression in the nucleus. The bone matrices of both lesions showed similar expression patterns for all markers tested except for osteocalcin. Immunoreactivity for osteocalcin was strong throughout calcified regions in fibrous dysplasia, but weak in ossifying fibroma lesions. Second, we performed PCR analysis with peptide nucleic acid (PNA) for mutations at the Arg201 codon of the alpha subunit of the stimulatory G protein gene (GNAS), which has reported to be a marker for extragnathic fibrous dysplasia. All nine cases of extragnathic or gnathic fibrous dysplasia were positive for this mutation. On the other hand, none of the five cases of ossifying fibroma showed the mutation. These findings indicate that although fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma are similar disease entities, especially in the demonstration of the osteogenic lineage in stromal fibroblast-like cells, they show distinct differences that can be revealed by immunohistochemical detection of osteocalcin expression. Furthermore, PCR analysis with PNA for GNAS mutations at the Arg201 codon is a useful method to differentiate between fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma.
AB - Ossifying fibroma and fibrous dysplasia of the jaw are maxillofacial fibro-osseous lesions that should be distinguished each other by a pathologist because they show distinct patterns of disease progression. However, both lesions often show similar histological and radiological features, making distinction between the two a diagnostic dilemma. In this study, we performed immunological and molecular analyses of five ossifying fibromas, four cases of extragnathic fibrous dysplasia, and five cases of gnathic fibrous dysplasia with typical histological and radiographic features. First, we examined the difference between fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma in the expression of Runx2 (which determined osteogenic differentiation from mesenchymal stem cells) and other osteogenic markers. Fibroblastic cells in fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma showed strong Runx2 expression in the nucleus. The bone matrices of both lesions showed similar expression patterns for all markers tested except for osteocalcin. Immunoreactivity for osteocalcin was strong throughout calcified regions in fibrous dysplasia, but weak in ossifying fibroma lesions. Second, we performed PCR analysis with peptide nucleic acid (PNA) for mutations at the Arg201 codon of the alpha subunit of the stimulatory G protein gene (GNAS), which has reported to be a marker for extragnathic fibrous dysplasia. All nine cases of extragnathic or gnathic fibrous dysplasia were positive for this mutation. On the other hand, none of the five cases of ossifying fibroma showed the mutation. These findings indicate that although fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma are similar disease entities, especially in the demonstration of the osteogenic lineage in stromal fibroblast-like cells, they show distinct differences that can be revealed by immunohistochemical detection of osteocalcin expression. Furthermore, PCR analysis with PNA for GNAS mutations at the Arg201 codon is a useful method to differentiate between fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma.
KW - Bone matrix proteins
KW - Differential diagnosis
KW - Fibrous dysplasia
KW - GNAS mutation
KW - Ossifying fibroma
KW - Runx2
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847374308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847374308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/modpathol.3800753
DO - 10.1038/modpathol.3800753
M3 - Article
C2 - 17334331
AN - SCOPUS:33847374308
SN - 0893-3952
VL - 20
SP - 389
EP - 396
JO - Modern Pathology
JF - Modern Pathology
IS - 3
ER -