- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Study of Giant Cell Granuloma of the Jaw and Giant Cell Tumor of Long Bones (Comparative Study) | ||
| Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal | ||
| Article 1, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 33-39 PDF (0 K) | ||
| Authors | ||
| Luay Edward. M; Bashar H. Abdullah; Omar A. Kader | ||
| Abstract | ||
| ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) and peripheral giant cell granuloma (PGCG) are tumor like lesions that affect jaw bones, while giant cell tumor (osteoclastoma) is a tumor that affects the long bones (e.g. tubular bones). Its affection of the jaw bones is a matter of debate. Both are very similar in their histopathological features while they vary in their clinical behavior. GCT shows a more aggressive behavior than GCG. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the expression of (Proliferating cell nuclear antigen) and (P53) in peripheral and central giant cell lesion of the jaw and giant cell tumor of long bones with correlation to histopathological parameters. METHODS: A total of 17 (GCT), 15 (CGCG) and 16 (PGCG) cases where enrolled in this study. Immunohistochemical staining with PCNA and P53 monoclonal antibody was performed. RESULTS: A non-significant difference in proliferative activities was recorded among different histological giant cell lesion subtypes. Giant cell granuloma expressed the same proliferative potential to that of giant cell tumor, moreover PCNA expression was not statistically correlated to different histopathological paramters of lesion subtype. On the other hand. The anti-apoptotic potential of giant cell granuloma which expressed by anti P53 monoclonal antibody was the same of that of giant cell tumor. CONCLUSION: Results of this study proved that the biological behavior namely P53 and PCNA activities was comparable between giant cell lesions and giant cell tumor. This suggest that these two conditions may act as one disease entity with a spectrum of clinical behavior, possibly due to certain differences in anatomical location which by itself affect its biological behavior. This hypothesis needs further verification concerning the clonality of the lesion to be accepted or refused | ||
| Keywords | ||
| central giant cell granuloma; Peripheral giant cell granuloma; Giant cell tumor | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 358 PDF Download: 134 |
||