| Literature DB >> 28555187 |
Pavel Dulguerov1, Jelena Todic1, Marc Pusztaszeri2, Naif H Alotaibi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recurrence of pleomorphic adenoma (PA) has been extensively debated, mostly in relation to the extent of parotidectomy.Entities:
Keywords: parotid tumors; parotidectomy; pathology; pleomorphic adenoma; recurrence
Year: 2017 PMID: 28555187 PMCID: PMC5430411 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Exclusion criteria and number of publications excluded.
| Exclusion on abstracts | Exclusion after article review | |
|---|---|---|
| Starting total | 401 | 79 |
| Cancer | 70 | |
| Case reports | 24 | 2 ( |
| Evaluation | 11 | 9 ( |
| Metastatic pleomorphic adenoma (PA) | 19 | |
| Not PA (other benign histology) | 13 | |
| PA other locations (not parotid gland) | 21 | |
| Parotid tumors in general | 50 | 3 ( |
| Parotidectomy complications | 4 | 5 ( |
| Parotidectomy extent for PA | 26 | 4 ( |
| Parotidectomy techniques and outcome | 27 | 1 ( |
| Treatment of recurrent PA | 38 | 3 ( |
| No relevant data/reviews | 19 | 22 ( |
| Remaining publications | 79 | 30 |
Figure 1Histological subtypes of pleomorphic adenoma. (A) Classic type, (B) myxoid type, and (C) hypercellular type.
Distribution of pleomorphic adenoma subtypes.
| Myxoid (%) | Mixed—classical (%) | Hypercellular (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seifert et al. ( | 50 | 33 | 17 |
| Naeim et al. ( | 39 | 27 | 33 |
| Stennert et al. ( | 51 | 14 | 35 |
| Webb and Eveson ( | 35 | 37 | 28 |
| Zbären and Stauffer ( | 26 | 54 | 20 |
| Park et al. ( | 19 | 75 | 6 |
Figure 2Integrity of the pleomorphic adenoma capsule. (A) Capsular integrity preserved and (B) ruptured capsula.
Pathological and surgical variables related to recurrence of pleomorphic adenoma (PA).
| Reference | Lack of capsule | Pseudopodia | Satellite nodules | Multi-centricity | Exposed capsule | Gross specimen damage (%) | Tumor puncture | Tumor spillage | Margins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Danovan and Conley ( | 21 | 40 | 27 | ||||||
| Goudot et al. ( | 4/14 | ||||||||
| Lam et al. ( | 33 | 0 | 100 | 27 | |||||
| Natvig and Soberg ( | 36 | 2/33 | |||||||
| Henriksson et al. ( | 8/55 | 4/7 | 12/22 | ||||||
| Stennert et al. ( | 46/66 | 28 | 28 | ||||||
| Webb and Eveson ( | 12 | 0 | 81 | 5.5 | |||||
| Ghosh et al. ( | 5/11 | 1.8%/18% | |||||||
| Paris et al. ( | 53/60 | 0 | |||||||
| Zbären and Stauffer ( | 33 | 40 | 13 | 0 | 80 | ||||
| Orita et al. ( | 3 | 1 | |||||||
| Riad et al. ( | 0 | 11/100 | 1/57 | 1.3/6 mm | |||||
| Park et al. ( | 58/70 | 53/60 | 10/60 | 4/30 | 4/30 | 11%/50% |
.
.
.
Figure 3Pseudopodia.
Figure 4Satellite nodules.