ReviewHead and neck pathology2021
CEOT Variants or Entities: Time for a Rethink? A Case Series with Review of the Literature.
Review in Head and neck pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis Between Dentinogenic Ghost Cell Tumor and Ghost Cell Odontogenic Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.Head and neck pathology · 2021Pooled it
- Calcifying Epithelial Odontogenic Tumor: A Report of a Rare Case With Clinical and Radiographic Findings.Cureus · 2026Article
- Malignant transformation of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumour: A systematic review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Revision of an Early History of Calcifying Epithelial Odontogenic Tumor: Herkert's Original Description (1914).Head and neck pathology · 2025Article
- Calcifying Epithelial Odontogenic Tumour (Pindborg Tumour): A Report of 20 Cases and Review of the Literature.Head and neck pathology · 2025Review
- Noncalcifying type of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor: A rare case report and literature review.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Giant calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor after I-125 seed implantation: A case report.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Proceedings of the 2023 North American Society of Head and Neck Pathology Companion Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March 12, 2023: Odontogenic Tumors: Have We Achieved an Evidence-Based Classification.Head and neck pathology · 2023Review
- Top 10 Clear Cell Head and Neck Lesions to Contemplate.Head and neck pathology · 2023Review
- Non-calcifying Langerhans Cell Rich Variant of Calcifying Epithelial Odontogenic Tumor and Amyloid Rich Variant of Central Odontogenic Fibroma: A Unique Entity or a Spectrum?Frontiers in oral health · 2021Review
- Unravelling a solitary gingival swelling: A unique case report of clear cell calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumour.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first detailed description of calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor (CEOT) are ascribed to Jens Pindborg, but this tumor was described some years previously. Subsequently, CEOT was included in the 1971 WHO classification of odontogenic tumors and a since then number of variants have been described, which have added confusion to the diagnostic criteria. We aimed to survey the literature on the variants of CEOT, in parallel with a review of our single institution experience of CEOTs. Cases identified were collated, including available clinical, radiological and histological information and then reviewed, taking into account changes in the understanding and classifications of odontogenic tumors since initial diagnosis. We identified 26 cases from 1975 to 2017 for which histological material was available. Of these, only 13 (50%) showed the "classic" histological appearance, whilst two cases were identified as recognized variants. In 11 cases, other diagnoses or a differential diagnosis were preferred, with no agreed diagnosis in four of these. The proliferation fraction (Ki67) in the 10 cases tested was 2.1% ± 0.18. These findings illustrate the diagnostic challenges in this group of tumors and highlight the gaps in knowledge. Techniques, such as EWSR1 gene cytogenetic analysis, may be helpful in cases with clear cells. However, in other areas of controversy, including the non-calcifying and Langerhans cell rich variants, further investigation, perhaps utilizing sequencing technologies may be needed to refine the classification. Owing to the relative rarity of these lesions it would be beneficial if future work could be pursued as an international collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.