Advertisement

Head and Neck Pathology

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 105–112 | Cite as

Salivary Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Review of 76 Patients

  • Shuting Bai
  • Rashna Clubwala
  • Esther Adler
  • Cathy Sarta
  • Bradley Schiff
  • Richard V. Smith
  • Douglas R. Gnepp
  • Margaret Brandwein-GenslerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is a relatively common salivary tumor with varying potential for aggressive behavior. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma grading has evolved from descriptive two-tiered schemata to more objective three-tiered systems. In 2001, we published a grading system Brandwein et al. in Am J Surg Pathol 25:835–845, (2001) which modified the prevailing criteria of Auclair et al. in Cancer 69:2021–2030 (1992), and included additional features of aggressive MEC. Here we seek to validate our modified grading system in a new multicenter cohort. The retrospective cohort consisted of 76 patients with confirmed MEC and known outcome data. The resection specimens were reviewed and uniformly graded according to our modified criteria Brandwein et al. in Am J Surg Pathol 25:835–845 (2001), and the Auclair criteria Auclair et al. in Cancer 69:2021–2030, (1992), Goode et al. in Cancer 82:1217–1224, (1998). Case distribution was as follows: Montefiore Medical Center: 41 (1977–2009), University of Alabama at Birmingham: 21 (1999–2010), and Rhode Island Hospital: 14, (1995–2011). Patient age ranged from 7 to 81 years (mean 51 years). The female to male ratio was 3:1. The most commonly involved sites were: parotid: n = 39 (51 %), palate: n = 10 (13 %), retromolar trigone: n = 6 (8 %), buccal: n = 5 (7 %), and submandibular gland: n = 5 (7 %). The modified criteria upgraded 41 % MEC; 20/25 MEC from AFIP Grade 1 to Grade 2 and 5/25 from AFIP Grade 1 to Grade 3. Eleven patients had positive lymph nodes; the AFIP MEC grade for cases were: Grade 1–3/11, Grade 2–1/11, and Grade 3–7/11; the modified grading criteria distribution for these cases were Grade 1: 0/11, Grade 2: 1/11, and Grade 3: 10/11. Nine patients developed disease progression after definitive treatment. High-stage and positive lymph node status were significantly associated with disease progression (p = 0.0003 and p < 0.0001, respectively). For the nine patients with disease progression, the modified grading schema classified eight MEC as Grade 3 and one as Grade 2. By comparison, the AFIP grading schema classified three of these MEC as Grade 1, and the remaining six as Grade 3. Despite the fact that this multicenter retrospective study accrued 76 patients with outcome, the predictive performance of the two grading schema could not be compared due to the few patients who experienced disease progression and were also reclassified with respect to grade (n = 3).

Keywords

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma Grading Pattern of invasion AFIP Modified criteria 

References

  1. 1.
    Brandwein MS, Ivanov K, Wallace DI, Hille JJ, Wang B, Fahmy A, Bodian C, Urken ML, Gnepp DR, Huvos A, Lumerman H, Mills SE. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study of 80 patients with special reference to histological grading. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:835–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auclair PL, Goode RK, Ellis GL. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of intraoral salivary glands. Evaluation and application of grading criteria in 143 cases. Cancer. 1992;69:2021–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goode RK, Auclair PL, Ellis GL. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the major salivary glands: clinical and histopathologic analysis of 234 cases with evaluation of grading criteria. Cancer. 1998;82:1217–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goode RK, El-Naggar AK. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma. In: Barnes L, Eveson J, Reichart P, Sidransky D, editors. World organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics. Head and neck tumours. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart FW, Foote FW, Becker WF. Muco-epidermoid tumors of salivary glands. Ann Surg. 1945;122:820–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foote FW, Frazell EL. Tumors of the major salivary glands. Cancer. 1953;6:1065–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jakobsson PA, Blanck C, Eneroth CM. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the parotid gland. Cancer. 1968;22:111–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans HL. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of salivary glands: a study of 69 cases with special attention to histologic grading. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81:696–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Healey WV, Perzin KH, Smith L. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of salivary gland origin. Classification, clinical-pathologic correlation, and results of treatment. Cancer. 1970;26:368–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Batsakis JG, Luna MA. Histopathologic grading of salivary gland neoplasms: I. Mucoepidermoid carcinomas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1990;99:835–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luna MA. Salivary mucoepidermoid carcinoma: revisited. Adv Anat Pathol. 2006;13:293–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nance MA, Seethala RR, Wang Y, Chiosea SI, Myers EN, Johnson JT, Lai SY. Treatment and survival outcomes based on histologic grading in patients with head and neck mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Cancer. 2008;113:2082–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuting Bai
    • 1
  • Rashna Clubwala
    • 3
  • Esther Adler
    • 2
  • Cathy Sarta
    • 4
  • Bradley Schiff
    • 4
  • Richard V. Smith
    • 4
  • Douglas R. Gnepp
    • 3
  • Margaret Brandwein-Gensler
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyMontefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyWarren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Rhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryMontefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations