Gargi S Sarode1, Sachin C Sarode1, Shailesh Gawande1, Snehal Patil1, Rahul Anand1, Shankar Gouda Patil2, Prakash Patil3. 1. Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Dr D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 2. Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 3. Department of Dentistry, Maharashtra Institute of Medical Education and Research, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) and giant cell tumor of long bones (GCT) with respect to cannibalistic giant cells (GCs). METHOD: Sixteen cases each of CGCG and GCT were histopathologically analyzed for cannibalistic GCs. One hundred GCs were examined in each section, and the number of cannibalistic GCs was expressed in percentage. RESULTS: Cannibalistic GCs were seen in all cases of CGCG and GCT (100%). GCT showed significantly higher mean cannibalistic GC frequency (44.81 ± 1.013) than CGCG (32.06 ± 1.398), aggressive CGCG (38.17 ± 1.579), non-aggressive CGCG (28.40 ± 0.6360), non-recurrent CGCG (30.42 ± 1.417), and recurrent CGCG (37.00 ± 2.483). In aggressive CGCG, the mean cannibalistic GC frequency was significantly higher (38.17 ± 1.579) than the non-aggressive variant (28.40 ± 0.6360). Recurrent CGCG cases showed significantly higher mean cannibalistic GC frequency (37.00 ± 2.483) than non-recurrent cases (30.42 ± 1.417). Similarly, recurrent GCT showed significantly higher mean cannibalistic GC frequency (47.4 ± 4.97) than non-recurrent GCT (43.63 ± 3.1). CONCLUSION: The distinctness of CGCG and GCT was observed in terms of mean cannibalistic GC count. The assessment of cannibalistic GC in CGCG and GCT could help in predicting the biological behavior and grading of the tumor.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) and giant cell tumor of long bones (GCT) with respect to cannibalistic giant cells (GCs). METHOD: Sixteen cases each of CGCG and GCT were histopathologically analyzed for cannibalistic GCs. One hundred GCs were examined in each section, and the number of cannibalistic GCs was expressed in percentage. RESULTS: Cannibalistic GCs were seen in all cases of CGCG and GCT (100%). GCT showed significantly higher mean cannibalistic GC frequency (44.81 ± 1.013) than CGCG (32.06 ± 1.398), aggressive CGCG (38.17 ± 1.579), non-aggressive CGCG (28.40 ± 0.6360), non-recurrent CGCG (30.42 ± 1.417), and recurrent CGCG (37.00 ± 2.483). In aggressive CGCG, the mean cannibalistic GC frequency was significantly higher (38.17 ± 1.579) than the non-aggressive variant (28.40 ± 0.6360). Recurrent CGCG cases showed significantly higher mean cannibalistic GC frequency (37.00 ± 2.483) than non-recurrent cases (30.42 ± 1.417). Similarly, recurrent GCT showed significantly higher mean cannibalistic GC frequency (47.4 ± 4.97) than non-recurrent GCT (43.63 ± 3.1). CONCLUSION: The distinctness of CGCG and GCT was observed in terms of mean cannibalistic GC count. The assessment of cannibalistic GC in CGCG and GCT could help in predicting the biological behavior and grading of the tumor.