ArticleHead and neck pathology2026
Pleomorphic Adenoma of the Palate with Bizarre Ductal and Myoepithelial Cells: A Case Image.
Article in Head and neck pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPleomorphic adenomas (PAs), the most common salivary gland tumors, are comprised of ductal epithelial and myoepithelial cells within a stromal background. A rare subset of PAs exhibits bizarre cells and 12q amplification involving HMGA2 and MDM2; in reported cases, bizarre cells have been confined to the myoepithelial component. We report the first case of a PA with bizarre-cytological features in both the ductal and myoepithelial components. CASE PRESENTATION: A 75-year-old woman presented with a palatal mass. Histology revealed a well-circumscribed biphasic tumor with marked nuclear pleomorphism in both luminal ductal and non-luminal myoepithelial cells. Despite the alarming atypia, mitotic activity was low, and neither necrosis nor invasive growth was observed. Immunohistochemically, luminal bizarre cells exhibited ductal characteristics, whereas non-luminal bizarre cells exhibited myoepithelial characteristics. Tumor cells were negative for androgen receptor and HER2 and showed a p53 wild-type expression pattern. The Ki-67 labeling index was < 5%, and the bizarre cells rarely tested positive. Molecular analysis demonstrated amplification of HMGA2 and MDM2, whereas no other pathogenic variants related to salivary gland tumors were detected. Complete excision was performed; no evidence of recurrence or metastasis was observed after 10 months.
conclusionMarked cytological atypia of bizarre cells in PA, even when involving ductal cells, may not necessarily indicate malignancy. This case highlights the value of integrating clinicopathological and genetic findings to better define PAs with bizarre cells and prevent overdiagnosis of carcinoma based on atypia alone.
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.