Computer assisted histomorphologic comparision and the expression of AgNORs in the central and peripheral giant cell lesions of the oral cavity and giant cell tumor of the long bone

Bina Kashyap; Sridhar P Reddy; Rajiv Desai; Rudrayya S Puranik; Srinivas S Vanaki

doi:10.4103/0973-029X.141350

Computer assisted histomorphologic comparision and the expression of AgNORs in the central and peripheral giant cell lesions of the oral cavity and giant cell tumor of the long bone

J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2014 Sep;18(Suppl 1):S54-9. doi: 10.4103/0973-029X.141350.

Authors

Bina Kashyap¹, Sridhar P Reddy², Rajiv Desai³, Rudrayya S Puranik⁴, Srinivas S Vanaki⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oral Pathology, Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
² Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
³ Department of Oral Pathology, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
⁴ Department of Oral Pathology, P.M.N.M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India.

Abstract

Objective: Computer-assisted image analysis was attempted to ascertain, if any of the previously described histologic features along with argyrophilic nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs) could be used to determine the aggressiveness of the central giant cell granuloma of the jaws (CGCG), peripheral giant cell granuloma of the oral cavity (PGCG) and giant cell tumor of the long bones (GCT).

Study design: The study consisted of 20 cases of CGCG, 20 cases of PGCG and 5 cases of GCT. The histological features included were number of giant cells, number of nuclei in each giant cell, number of blood vessels, fractional surface area (FSA) and relative size index (RSI) of giant cells. The histologic parameters were measured using Motic image plus analyzer and AgNORs were evaluated using silver stain.

Results: The statistical analysis showed significant differences among various histological parameters between CGCG, PGCG and GCT. A statistically significant difference was noted for the mean number of nuclei, FSA and RSI when GCT was compared with CGCG and PGCG. FSA of histologically aggressive central giant cell granuloma (HA-CGCG) was more compared to histologically non-aggressive central giant cell granuloma (HNA-CGCG). No statistical correlation was observed for AgNORs of multinucleated giant cells and mononuclear cells among CGCG, PGCG and GCT.

Conclusion: Based on the present study findings, CGCG and GCT are distinct and separate entities and not a continuum of a single disease process. Histological parameters alone have a little implication on predicting clinical behavior of CGCG. AgNORs alone as a proliferative marker has a limited value in assessing the proliferation potential of giant cell lesions.

Keywords: Argyrophilic nucleolar organizer regions; central giant cell granuloma; giant cell tumor; peripheral giant cell granuloma.