| Abstract|| |
Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is the most frequently over-diagnosed neoplasm in orthopedic pathology because giant cells are a common component of many neoplastic and nonneoplastic conditions of bone. Triple diagnosis, requiring substantial individual and collective inputs by orthopedic surgeons, radiologists and pathologists, is the preferred method for the workup of patients with suspected bone neoplasms. At each stage in triple diagnosis, deviations from the typical must be regarded as clues to alternate diagnoses: the greater the deviation, the more a diagnosis of GCT must be considered suspect. A suspect diagnosis must trigger renewed analysis of the available data and a diligent search to exclude alternate diagnoses.
Keywords: Bone tumor, giant cell tumors of bone, GCT, orthopedic pathology, triple diagnosis.
|How to cite this article:|
Kotru M, Singh N. The value of recognizing suspect diagnoses in the triple diagnosis of giant cell tumor of bone. Indian J Orthop 2007;41:97-100
Orthopedic pathologists were among the earliest to emphasize the importance of a combined approach to tumor diagnosis. Essentially, this means that the diagnoses based on a) clinical data, b) radiological and other imaging analysis and c) pathologic evaluation must, individually and collectively, contribute substantially towards establishing the correct diagnosis.
|How to cite this URL:|
Kotru M, Singh N. The value of recognizing suspect diagnoses in the triple diagnosis of giant cell tumor of bone. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2007 [cited 2019 Dec 5];41:97-100. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2007/41/2/97/32038
A brief listing of the clinical and radiographic features of the case at hand, the location of the lesion: whether epiphyseal, metaphyseal or diaphyseal and the clinical and radiological diagnosis or a list of differential diagnoses, must therefore be a minimum requirement for submitting tissue for histopathological analysis. Armed with this information the pathologist is expected to make an intelligent assessment of the histopathology to come to a diagnosis.
| The Classic Giant Cell Tumor of Bone|| |
The many elaborate descriptions of giant cell tumor of bone in the literature ,, scarcely require repetition. Briefly, the classic GCT affects the mature skeleton with closed epiphyseal plates, most commonly in the third decade of life. Serum chemistries are typically normal. Located near the articular ends of the lower end of the femur or upper end of the tibia, the epiphysis is invariably involved by the radiographically lytic lesion. In this clinical and radiological setting, the histopathological picture of diffusely dispersed osteoclast-like giant cells in the characteristic stroma is diagnostic of giant cell tumor.
The morphology of the background population of mononuclear cells is crucial to the diagnosis. Essentially these are round, oval or polygonal in shape with nuclei closely resembling those in the giant cells [Figure - 1]. Sometimes the mononuclear cells are spindled with varying amounts of eosinophilic cytoplasm; these are less diagnostic and efforts to examine more tissue to look for the diagnostic cells must be made. Mitoses may be abundant in the mononuclear cells, but do not predict behavior of the tumor.
The giant cells in GCT often contain a large number of nuclei, sometimes over a hundred, a feature rarely seen in other osseus neoplasms. It is thought that giant cells form by fusion of the mononuclear cells. Supporting this concept is the fact that mitosis is never seen in the giant cell nuclei. Osteoclast-like giant cells in GCT are thought to derive from a monocyte-macrophage lineage. Besides others,  they have been shown to express the macrophage marker HAM-56.  The stromal cells are thought to originate from mesenchymal stem cells. 
Many neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesions of bone may contain varying proportions of giant cells. Probably the best way to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis is to consider any variation from the classical as a clue to an alternate diagnosis. Identifying a suspect diagnosis is thus an important first step towards the correct diagnosis.
| Differential Diagnosis|| |
A brief consideration of the differential diagnosis of each of these situations is presented below [Table - 1].
| I) By Clinical Features and Site|| |
GCT in an immature skeleton with open epiphyseal plates
Most GCTs occur in patients older than 20 years of age i.e., after the closure of epiphyses. The peak incidence is in the third decade. Very rarely, GCT occurs in younger patients.  In such cases it is seen in late teenage involving the bones of hands and feet. Osteosarcoma with prominent giant cells, one of the most serious diagnostic pitfalls in orthopedic pathology, must enter the differential diagnosis in patients with immature skeleton.
GCT occurring de novo in a patient older than 55 years
De novo tumors in older patients are more likely to be malignant tumors other than GCT. Occasionally, a primary malignant GCT, which may have sarcomatous areas, can be encountered. Spontaneous malignant transformation of GCT in older patients has also been described.  There appears to be no reliable way of knowing which of these tumors will undergo malignant change. 
GCT in a patient with elevated serum calcium
Elevated serum calcium must suggest brown tumor of hyperparathyroidism  and giant cell reparative granuloma, which regardless of its location, is histologically indistinguishable from it. Serum calcium, phosphate and alkaline phosphatase levels should be determined. Serum parathyroid hormone levels should be determined when calcium levels are at the upper limits of normal to exclude normocalcemic hyperparathyroidism.
GCT near articular ends of long tubular bones (other than around the knee joint): (i) distal radius, (ii) proximal femur, (iii) proximal humerus and (iv) distal tibia.
More than 50% GCTs occur in the region of the knee.  If all other parameters are in agreement, the diagnosis is most likely to be correct at this site than at any other. Giant cell tumor has been reported in the distal radius, proximal femur, proximal humerus and distal tibia in reducing order of frequency compared to around the knee joint. Therefore, at these sites the diagnosis of GCT must be considered increasingly suspect, until proved otherwise.
GCT involving the flat bones other than the sacrum and the pelvis
When GCT does occur in the flat bones, the sacrum and the pelvis are favored sites, albeit with the caveat that these are relatively rare sites. 
GCT of the craniofacial (particularly the jaw) bones, except in a patient with Paget's disease
Most Paget sarcomas are osteosarcomas. GCT very rarely arises in patients with Paget's disease, when it may involve the craniofacial bones.  The distribution of GCT tends to parallel the distribution of uncomplicated Paget's disease. It pays to remember that most giant cell lesions of the jaw are giant cell reparative granulomas , in which the giant cells tend to have fewer nuclei and be aggregated around areas of hemorrhage;
GCT of the small bones of the hands and feet and GCT of the vertebrae above the sacrum
Giant cell tumor of the small bones of the hands and feet  and of the vertebrae above the sacrum  are very rare. Most giant cell lesions of the small bones of the hands and feet are reparative granulomas. Those of the vertebrae are aneurysmal bone cysts which, unlike GCT, involve the posterior arch and spinous processes.
Although rarely, multicentric GCTs  have been described, however, multifocal giant cell lesions are more likely to be brown tumors of hyperparathyroidism, a question easily settled by serum chemistries and alkaline phosphatase determinations.
| II) By Radiographic Appearance|| |
GCT not involving the epiphysis
GCT with perilesional sclerosis
GCT with periosteal calcifications (sunburst, onionskin, Codman triangle)
The interpretation of radiographic features is outside the scope of most pathologists' work, emphasizing the reliance that must be placed on the radiologists' input.
| III) By Gross and Microscopic Features|| |
GCT in the presence of uninvolved or open epiphysis
Involvement of the epiphysis can be ascertained by the pathologist only in resection or amputation specimens. The pathologist must be informed of radiographic evidence of epiphyseal involvement when curettings are submitted for histopathological examination.
GCT with diffusely permeative growth pattern
Diffusely permeative radiographic and histopathological growth patterns are indicative of malignant tumors, notably osteosarcoma,  which often infiltrate considerably into surrounding tissue. Exceptions occur when the metaphyseal region of a GCT is sampled: a permeative growth pattern, corresponding to the ill-defined margin seen radiographically, may be seen on microscopic examination. Identification of the region of the tumor that has been sampled - essential for correct interpretation - can be a problem with curetted material. When dealing with resection specimens, specimen radiography as an aid to tissue sampling is beneficial.
GCT with abundant matrix production
About half of all GCTs exhibit reactive osteoid and woven bone at the advancing edge of the tumor. This must be distinguished from the tumor osteoid of osteosarcoma. The clues to the diagnosis lie in the radiographic analysis and in the morphology , of the stromal cells. The background mononuclear cells of GCT are predominantly round, oval or polygonal in shape and many are indistinguishable from normal histiocytes. The nuclei closely resemble those within the giant cells. Pleomorphism and atypical mitotic figures must be considered indications to exclude osteosarcoma and to embed and section all the available tissue, particularly if the radiography is atypical and the skeleton immature.
GCT with reactive sclerosis
Reactive sclerosis should suggest nonossifying fibroma  (NOF). Nonossifying fibroma occurs in the metaphysis of younger patients. Spindle-shaped stromal cells with fibrosis and aggregates of foamy macrophages may be seen focally in GCT and extensively in NOF. Review of radiological and clinical features should allow easy differentiation.
GCT with cartilage in unfractured tumors
Cartilage may be seen in fractured GCT as a manifestation of healing fracture.  Healing fracture is a diagnostic pitfall for many osseus and cartilaginous neoplasms of bone.
Careful evaluation for histopathological signs of organization and zonation in healing fracture must be made. Unless fracture can be supported by radiographic evidence, a diagnosis of GCT must not be made in the presence of cartilage.
GCT with giant cells in clusters
In general, uniform distribution of large giant cells in the appropriate stromal background is characteristic of GCT. Smaller giant cells, with fewer nuclei, aggregate around areas of hemorrhage in reparative granuloma  and brown tumor of hyperparathyroidism. In other situations giant cells present focally should be a clue to an alternate diagnosis such as aneurysmal bone cyst.
GCT is an aggressive lesion with high degree of local recurrence and malignant potential. Despite the advocacy of several grading systems, , if true sarcomas are excluded, there appears to be no reliable way of knowing which of these tumors will undergo malignant change. When transformation does occur, on an average, mean age of transformation seems to be seven years. The average age of transformation reduces further if the GCT has been previously treated with irradiation.
Benign metastasizing GCT is an uncommon, poorly understood phenomenon where otherwise typical GCTs exhibit pulmonary metastases. These may be present at the time of initial presentation or be detected up to several years later. The metastatic lesions are histologically identical to the primary tumor.  Histopathological examination of the pulmonary lesion and review of the tissue removed at the time of the initial diagnosis must be carried out to exclude either malignant change in a GCT or a sarcoma with giant cells.
| Conclusion|| |
Successful therapy is critically dependent on accurate diagnosis. Recognition of suspect diagnoses is important in avoiding mis-diagnosis of giant cell lesions of bone, of which GCT is but one. For maximal benefit this concept must be utilized in all three arms of the triple diagnosis.
| References|| |
|1.||Dahlin DC, Cupps RE, Johnson EW Jr. Giant cell tumor: A study of 195 cases. Cancer 1970;25:1061-70. [PUBMED] |
|2.||Goldenberg RR, Campbell CJ, Bonfiglio M. Giant-cell tumor of bone. An analysis of two hundred and eighteen cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1970;52:619-64. |
|3.||Fechner RE, Mills SE. Giant cell lesions in Tumors of the bones and joints. Atlas of tumor pathology, 3 rd series, fascicle 8. Rosai J, Sobin LH, editors. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (Pubs): Washington, DC; 1993. p. 173-86. |
|4.||Brecher ME, Franklin WA, Simon MA. Immunohistochemical study of mononuclear phagocyte antigens in giant cell tumor of bone. Am J Pathol 1986;125:252-7. [PUBMED] |
|5.||Ramos RY, Haupt HM, Kanetsky PA, Donthineni-Rao R, Arenas-Elliott C, Lackman RD, et al. Giant cell tumors: Inquiry into immunohistochemical expression of CD117 (c-Kit), microphthalmia transcription factor, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase and HAM-56. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:360-5. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT]|
|6.||Wulling M, Delling G, Kaiser E. The origin of neoplastic stromal cell in giant cell tumor of bone. Hum Pathol 2003;34:983-93. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT]|
|7.||Picci P, Manfrini M, Zucchi V, Gherlinzoni F, Rock M, Bertoni F, et al. Giant-cell tumor of bone in skeletally immature patients. J Bone Joint Surg 1983;65:486-90. [PUBMED] |
|8.||Grote HJ, Braun M, Kalinski T, Pomjanski N, Back W, Bleyl U, et al. Spontaneous malignant transformation of conventional giant cell tumor. Skeletal Radiol 2004;33:169-75. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT]|
|9.||Rock MG, Pritchard DJ, Unni KK. Metastases from histologically benign giant cell tumor of bone. J Bone Joint Surg 1984;66:269-74. [PUBMED] |
|10.||Lessa MM, Sakae FA, Tsuji RK, Filho BC, Voegels RL, Butugan O. Brown tumor of the facial bones: A case report and literature review. Ear Nose Throat J 2005;84:432-4. [PUBMED] |
|11.||Dahlin DC, Unni KK. Bone tumors: General aspects and data on 8,542 cases. 4 th ed. Charles C Thomas: Springfield, IL; 1986. p. 119-40. |
|12.||Cheng YS, Wright JM, Walstad WR, Finn MD. Osteosarcoma arising in Paget's disease of the mandible. Oral Oncol 2002;38:785-92. |
|13.||Waldron CA, Shafer WG. The central giant cell reparative granuloma of the jaws. An analysis of 38 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;45:437-47. |
|14.||Kruse-Losler M, Diallo R, Gaertner C, Mischke KL, Joos U, Kleinheinz J. Central giant cell granuloma of the jaws: A clinical, radiologic and histopathologic study of 26 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:346-54. |
|15.||MacDonald DF, Binhammer PA, Rubenstein JD, Fornasier VL. Giant cell reparative granuloma of the hand: Case report and review of giant cell lesions of hands and feet. Can J Surg 2003;46:471-3. |
|16.||Llauger J, Palmer J, Amores S, Bague S, Camins A. Primary tumors of the sacrum: Diagnostic imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:417-24. |
|17.||Hindman BW, Seeger LL, Stanley P, Forrester DM, Schwinn CP, Tan SZ. Multicentric giant cell tumor report of five new cases. Skeletal Radiol 1994;23:187-90. |
|18.||Edeiken J, Raymond AK, Ayala AG, Benjamin RS, Murray JA, Carrasco HC. Small cell osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol 1987;16:621-8. |
|19.||Huvos G. Giant-cell tumor of bone in Bone tumors: Diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, 2 nd ed. WB Saunders Co: Philadelphia; 1991. p. 429-67. |
|20.||Mubarak S, Saltzstein SL, Daniel DM. Non-ossifying fibroma. Report of an intact lesion. Am J Clin Pathol 1974;61:697-701. |
|21.||Murphey MD, Nomikos GC, Flemming DJ, Gannes FH, Temple HT, Kransdorf MJ. Imaging of Giant cell tumor and Giant cell reparative granuloma of Bone: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographia 2001;21:1283-309. |
|22.||Jaffe HL, Lichtenstein L, Portis RB. Giant cell tumor of bone. It's pathologic appearance, grading, supposed variants and treatment. Arch Pathol 1940;30:993-1031. |
|23.||Sanerkin NG. Malignancy, aggressiveness and recurrence in giant cell tumor of bone. Cancer 1980;46:1641-9. |
|24.||Maloney WJ, Vaughan LM, Jones HH, Ross J, Nagel DA. Benign metastasizing giant-cell tumor of bone. Report of three cases and review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;243:208-15. |
Professor of Pathology University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Delhi - 110 095
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
[Figure - 1]
[Table - 1]