Clinical Utility of Molecular Testing in Ameloblastoma: A Systematic Review with Functional Meta-synthesis and Exploratory Meta-analysis.

IF 4.1
Carlos M Ardila, Eliana Pineda-Vélez, Alejandro I Díaz-Laclaustra
{"title":"Clinical Utility of Molecular Testing in Ameloblastoma: A Systematic Review with Functional Meta-synthesis and Exploratory Meta-analysis.","authors":"Carlos M Ardila, Eliana Pineda-Vélez, Alejandro I Díaz-Laclaustra","doi":"10.1007/s12105-026-01955-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review with functional meta-synthesis and exploratory meta-analysis evaluated the clinical utility of molecular testing in ameloblastoma, focusing on diagnostic, genotype-phenotype, prognostic, liquid-biopsy, and precision-therapy implications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception to April 2026. Eligible studies were full original articles evaluating direct molecular or molecularly interpretable testing in human ameloblastoma. Data were synthesized using functional meta-synthesis. Exploratory random-effects meta-analyses were performed when sufficient study-level data were available.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Molecular testing was most consistently informative for defining the molecular landscape and supporting diagnosis. BRAF V600E was the dominant alteration across the evidence base, but additional alterations in SMO, FGFR2, RAS-family genes, CTNNB1, PIK3CA, EGFR, and ROS1 were reported, particularly in selected or BRAF-wild-type tumors. Exploratory meta-analysis of 19 studies showed a pooled BRAF V600E prevalence of 69.1% (95% CI: 62.1%-75.3%; I2 = 80.3%). Four studies provided complete site-specific data, showing strong enrichment of BRAF V600E in mandibular versus maxillary tumors (OR = 20.13; 95% CI: 7.65-52.95; I2 = 0.0%). BRAF VE1 immunohistochemistry showed high exploratory pooled sensitivity (96.6%; 95% CI: 84.1%-99.4%) and specificity (89.8%; 95% CI: 71.5%-96.8%) when compared with molecular reference methods. Prognostic evidence was inconsistent: BRAF V600E was not a reliable stand-alone recurrence marker, although VEGF mRNA and broader molecular profiles may have prognostic relevance. Plasma cfDNA testing did not reliably detect tissue-positive BRAF V600E. Targeted therapy evidence suggested radiologic response and organ-preservation potential in selected BRAF V600E-mutated tumors, but remained limited to non-randomized series.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Molecular testing provides clinically relevant diagnostic and genotype-phenotype information in ameloblastoma and may guide targeted therapy in selected cases. Prognostic and liquid-biopsy applications remain insufficiently validated.</p>","PeriodicalId":520636,"journal":{"name":"Head and neck pathology","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13437821/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head and neck pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-026-01955-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review with functional meta-synthesis and exploratory meta-analysis evaluated the clinical utility of molecular testing in ameloblastoma, focusing on diagnostic, genotype-phenotype, prognostic, liquid-biopsy, and precision-therapy implications.

Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception to April 2026. Eligible studies were full original articles evaluating direct molecular or molecularly interpretable testing in human ameloblastoma. Data were synthesized using functional meta-synthesis. Exploratory random-effects meta-analyses were performed when sufficient study-level data were available.

Results: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Molecular testing was most consistently informative for defining the molecular landscape and supporting diagnosis. BRAF V600E was the dominant alteration across the evidence base, but additional alterations in SMO, FGFR2, RAS-family genes, CTNNB1, PIK3CA, EGFR, and ROS1 were reported, particularly in selected or BRAF-wild-type tumors. Exploratory meta-analysis of 19 studies showed a pooled BRAF V600E prevalence of 69.1% (95% CI: 62.1%-75.3%; I2 = 80.3%). Four studies provided complete site-specific data, showing strong enrichment of BRAF V600E in mandibular versus maxillary tumors (OR = 20.13; 95% CI: 7.65-52.95; I2 = 0.0%). BRAF VE1 immunohistochemistry showed high exploratory pooled sensitivity (96.6%; 95% CI: 84.1%-99.4%) and specificity (89.8%; 95% CI: 71.5%-96.8%) when compared with molecular reference methods. Prognostic evidence was inconsistent: BRAF V600E was not a reliable stand-alone recurrence marker, although VEGF mRNA and broader molecular profiles may have prognostic relevance. Plasma cfDNA testing did not reliably detect tissue-positive BRAF V600E. Targeted therapy evidence suggested radiologic response and organ-preservation potential in selected BRAF V600E-mutated tumors, but remained limited to non-randomized series.

Conclusions: Molecular testing provides clinically relevant diagnostic and genotype-phenotype information in ameloblastoma and may guide targeted therapy in selected cases. Prognostic and liquid-biopsy applications remain insufficiently validated.

分子检测在成釉细胞瘤中的临床应用:功能综合和探索性荟萃分析的系统综述。
目的:本系统综述采用功能综合和探索性荟萃分析评估分子检测在成釉细胞瘤中的临床应用,重点关注诊断、基因型-表型、预后、液体活检和精确治疗的意义。方法:检索自建校至2026年4月的PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus和Embase数据库。符合条件的研究是评价人类成釉细胞瘤直接分子或分子可解释测试的完整原创文章。采用功能综合方法对数据进行综合。当获得足够的研究水平数据时,进行探索性随机效应荟萃分析。结果:29项研究符合纳入标准。分子检测是最一致的信息,以确定分子景观和支持诊断。BRAF V600E是证据基础上的主要改变,但据报道,SMO、FGFR2、ras家族基因、CTNNB1、PIK3CA、EGFR和ROS1也发生了其他改变,特别是在选定的或BRAF野生型肿瘤中。19项研究的探索性荟萃分析显示BRAF V600E的总患病率为69.1% (95% CI: 62.1%-75.3%; I2 = 80.3%)。四项研究提供了完整的部位特异性数据,显示BRAF V600E在下颌骨肿瘤与上颌肿瘤中强烈富集(OR = 20.13; 95% CI: 7.65-52.95; I2 = 0.0%)。与分子参考方法相比,BRAF VE1免疫组化具有较高的探索性综合灵敏度(96.6%;95% CI: 84.1%-99.4%)和特异性(89.8%;95% CI: 71.5%-96.8%)。预后证据不一致:BRAF V600E不是可靠的独立复发标志物,尽管VEGF mRNA和更广泛的分子谱可能与预后相关。血浆cfDNA检测不能可靠地检测组织阳性BRAF V600E。靶向治疗证据表明,在选定的BRAF v600e突变肿瘤中,放射学反应和器官保存潜力,但仍然局限于非随机系列。结论:分子检测可提供成釉细胞瘤的临床相关诊断和基因型-表型信息,并可指导特定病例的靶向治疗。预后和液体活检的应用仍未得到充分验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书