Blog

A radiolucency needs an explanation

A well-defined jaw radiolucency can suggest a cyst, but its outline alone does not establish which lesion is present. Begin with the site, relationship to teeth, vitality findings and the full radiographic pattern. Then consider whether tissue examination supports the proposed diagnosis.

Radicular cyst

A radicular cyst is inflammatory and is associated with a non-vital tooth. Its relationship to the involved tooth is therefore diagnostically relevant. University teaching cases also demonstrate that a lesion near a root apex may prove to be something else when vitality and histology do not fit. [1]

Dentigerous cyst

A dentigerous cyst is a developmental cyst associated with the crown of an unerupted tooth, typically with attachment near the cemento-enamel junction. This relationship helps frame the differential diagnosis but should be assessed with the rest of the case. [2]

Odontogenic keratocyst

Odontogenic keratocysts occur in the jaws and can recur after treatment. Recognising the diagnosis therefore has implications for the surgical discussion and follow-up. [3] A pericoronal location should not automatically be accepted as sufficient proof of a dentigerous cyst.

Put the findings into the requisition

For a useful submission, record the affected tooth or teeth, vitality where relevant, the provisional diagnosis, prior treatment and available imaging. Explain whether the material was an incisional sample or an enucleated lesion.

Ask whether the microscopic conclusion adequately explains the clinical and radiographic findings. If the tissue is extensively inflamed or the sample is limited, discuss any interpretive uncertainty with the pathologist.

Teach the reasoning

For students, a useful exercise is to write one sentence explaining why each diagnosis is being considered and another identifying the finding that would make it less likely. This develops diagnostic reasoning beyond memorising a radiographic shape.

The final diagnosis should be supported by the available evidence and expressed with the confidence that evidence permits. Follow-up should be tailored to the established lesion and the treating team’s assessment.

References

[1] University of Washington School of Dentistry. Case of the Month, August 2011 diagnosis. Read source

[2] University of Washington School of Dentistry. Case of the Month, August 2008 diagnosis. Read source

[3] Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Treatment of Odontogenic Keratocysts. Read source

Begin with one clinical question

Oral diagnosis often depends on information collected in different settings. The examining clinician sees the lesion in the patient; imaging shows its anatomical relationships; tissue examination assesses the submitted sample. The practical challenge is to make these observations available together.

Oral and maxillofacial pathology includes clinical, radiographic and microscopic approaches to diagnosis. [1] The following is a suggested communication framework for bringing those approaches into a case review.

Make photographs informative

Label the anatomical site and date. Include an overview when it helps locate the lesion and a closer view when it shows the surface change. Record the relationship between the photographed area and the biopsy site.

Use secure systems and appropriate permission for collection and sharing. Remove unnecessary identifiers from teaching material without losing the clinical context.

Supply imaging that answers the relevant question

Provide the actual study or accessible report when possible, identifying its date and modality. For a jaw lesion, explain the clinical concern and relevant tooth findings. A photograph of a radiograph may be useful for communication but can limit assessment of detail.

Avoid presenting a measurement as precise when the supplied image does not support that precision. Explain the limitation in the referral.

Relate the tissue to the lesion

Identify which site was sampled and whether the specimen represents part or all of the lesion. Oral pathology services emphasise careful specimen handling and clear submission information. [2]

If the report does not explain the clinical picture, arrange a discussion of the complete case. The question is whether the findings fit together well enough to guide care, and what remains unresolved if they do not.

Write a useful handover

A concise referral can state the finding, the concern, the sample taken and the decision that depends on the diagnosis. Attach the relevant material and identify a clinician who can answer questions.

Better communication allows each contributor to interpret their findings in context and makes the final explanation clearer for the patient.

References

[1] American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. About AAOMP. Read source

[2] University of Michigan School of Dentistry. Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Biopsy Service. Read source

Ask what has changed or remains uncertain

Being advised to undergo another biopsy can be frustrating. The useful starting point is to ask why it is being recommended. Is the concern about the original sample, a change in the lesion or a finding that remains unexplained?

Oral lesions can require ongoing assessment. Guidance on oral mucosal dysplasia recognises the importance of surveillance and further sampling when appropriate to the clinical situation. [1]

A tissue result has a defined scope

A report describes the material examined. If the lesion remains clinically suspicious, the treating clinician should consider whether the available tissue adequately answers the diagnostic question. Professional guidance supports timely biopsy or referral for suspicious mucosal abnormalities. [2]

These principles explain why a reassuring earlier report should be read with the current examination rather than used as an unlimited assurance about every future change.

Make the second investigation purposeful

Before another procedure, the clinician and pathologist can discuss the precise site, previous findings and what additional information is needed. Ask whether the original slides should be reviewed and whether photographs or imaging would help guide the decision.

For the patient, useful questions are: What are we trying to clarify? Why is another sample more helpful than reviewing the existing one? Will a different area be sampled? How will the new result be compared with the first?

Avoid conclusions based only on repetition

A repeat biopsy does not, by itself, prove that the first clinician or laboratory made an error. Equally, the reason for repeating it should be explained rather than left vague.

Keep both reports and make sure the earlier diagnosis is available to the reviewing team. Confirm who will explain the combined interpretation.

The aim is to reduce a specific uncertainty. A clearly stated reason, a considered sampling plan and reliable follow-up make the repeat procedure easier to understand and more useful to the diagnostic process.

References

[1] American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Oral Mucosal Dysplasia position paper. Read source

[2] American Dental Association. Oral Cancer Guideline. Read source

Understand the purpose of review

A second pathology opinion is a review of diagnostic material by another pathologist. It may confirm the first interpretation, clarify a difficult issue or lead to a revised conclusion. It should be approached as a diagnostic process rather than a promise that the answer will change.

The National Cancer Institute notes that patients or clinicians may seek another pathology opinion and that the original slides or paraffin blocks may be needed. [1]

Start with a specific question

Useful questions might concern the classification of a lesion, an uncertain finding or whether the tissue explains the clinical picture. A request saying “Please review the diagnosis in relation to this imaging and examination” is more informative than sending a cropped diagnosis line without context.

For patients, ask your treating clinician what uncertainty the review is intended to resolve and whether any immediate care needs to continue while the review is arranged.

Gather the complete material

Ask the reviewing service for its requirements before dispatch. These may include the full report and addenda, labelled slides or blocks, clinical history and relevant imaging. Arrange release through the original laboratory’s procedure and keep a record of what has been transferred.

A photograph of a slide is not equivalent to reviewing all available sections. If the proposed review is limited to selected images, the scope should be explicit.

Plan how the answer will be used

Confirm who will receive the review report and discuss it with you. If the opinions differ, ask the treating team how the difference will be resolved and whether further discussion or testing is needed.

The goal is a clinically useful conclusion, not the collection of conflicting messages from several disconnected consultations. A coordinated second opinion helps the clinical team understand the evidence and explain the next decision clearly.

Reference

[1] National Cancer Institute. Surgical Pathology Reports, second opinions on surgical pathology results. Read source

A common concern deserves a clear answer

Some patients hesitate when a biopsy is advised because they have heard that touching a tumour makes it spread. The National Cancer Institute explains that the chance of biopsy or surgery causing cancer to spread is extremely low when appropriate procedures are followed. It also states that exposure to air does not make cancer grow faster. [1]

This is reassuring information, but no procedure should be described as having no possible risk. The type, site and technique of biopsy should be selected by the treating team.

Why a biopsy is recommended

A biopsy provides cells or tissue for a pathologist to examine. It can investigate cancer and many non-cancerous diseases. The result helps replace uncertainty with information that can guide the next decision. [2]

Ask what the clinician is trying to establish. A useful explanation connects the finding in your mouth with the proposed test and the decisions that may follow its result.

Discuss the procedure rather than postponing it silently

Tell the clinician exactly what worries you. Ask how the tissue will be collected, what risks are relevant to the site and what recovery instructions you will receive.

If you want another opinion before proceeding, ask how to arrange it without losing track of the lesion or the recommended timeline. Keep copies of the referral and any imaging.

Be careful with stories about timing

“The cancer was found after the biopsy” does not mean the biopsy caused it. Often the biopsy is the investigation that identifies the disease. Understanding what was known before and what was learned afterwards prevents a misleading conclusion.

The most useful outcome of the conversation is an informed decision and a clear plan. Before leaving, confirm whether you have agreed to the procedure, requested further discussion or chosen another assessment, and know who will arrange the next step.

References

[1] National Cancer Institute. Common Cancer Myths and Misconceptions. Read source

[2] US National Library of Medicine, MedlinePlus. Biopsy. Read source