Virchows Archiv

, Volume 472, Issue 3, pp 311–313 | Cite as

World Health Organization 4th edition of head and neck tumor classification: insight into the consequential modifications

Invited Editorial

In this editorial, we provide a broad review of the consequential modifications in the newly released 4th edition of the WHO head and neck tumor classification, comment on two selected reviews in this volume of the journal, and succinctly discuss the changes made in the salivary gland tumor chapter [1, 2, 3]. In general, the new edition represents a streamlined and simplified version from previous editions in an effort to reduce redundancy and to maintain consistency within and between different chapters and topics [4]. This task has been achieved through presenting tumor entities to the sites of their most common occurrence and presentation. Sometimes, however, exceptions to this rule have been made in limited entities for either prominence or their relevance to diagnosis and differential diagnosis at certain sites. For the first time in this edition, chapters devoted to the oropharyngeal and the neck region were established. Their inclusion was based on the distinctive structures and tumor types and their relevance to the differential diagnosis and management of patients with tumors at these regions, especially regarding HPV-associated squamous cell carcinoma for the oropharynx which bears profound epidemiologic and therapeutic consequences. Efforts were also made to adopt similar nomenclature and classification of entities commonly included in other WHO tumor classifications of different organs. This is particularly notable in the classification of neuroendocrine tumors, paraganglioma, soft tissue, and lymphoreticular disorders.

In this volume of the journal, together with this editorial, detailed reviews of the significant changes that have been implemented in the nasal, paranasal and skull base, and odontogenic tumor chapters are thoroughly presented [2, 3]. In these reviews, the authors addressed the rationale for accepting new entities and modifying nomenclatures and classification of others. The nasal skull-base section, in particular, detailed the characteristics of newly accepted entities and addressed the status of certain emerging entities to clarify their use in diagnosis and differential diagnosis. Similarly, the review of the odontogenic chapter addresses the wide-ranging changes and modifications in comparison to previous editions of the blue book. In particular, the inclusion of odontogenic cysts represents a significant addition that was felt to be integral to the differential diagnosis of several odontogenic tumors. The review also addresses changes in terminology, neoplastic nature, and the inclusion and exclusion of certain lesions; the outcome being a significant reduction in the number of entities within the group odontogenic lesions. We fully contend that awareness of these changes is critical to the implementation of these pathologists for modification for consistent diagnosis and proper management of these tumors.

Several notable changes have also been made in the salivary gland tumor chapter. Among these is the inclusion of hyperplastic conditions with significant differential diagnostic relevance encompassing sclerosing polycystic adenosis, nodular oncocytic hyperplasia, and intercalated duct hyperplasia [5, 6]. Similar to the policy for other chapters in the 4th edition, the discussion of lymphoproliferative disorders in the salivary tumor chapter was limited to those commonly identified in salivary glands with a focus on extranodal marginal zone and mucosa-associated lymphoma (MALT syndrome) as the most common type of lymphomas, in this area [7]. Because of their commonly shared features and presentations, both exophytic and inverted ductal papillomas were combined and presented in the chapter under one single heading [8, 9]. Also, a simplified grading system for mucoepidermoid carcinoma was achieved [10]. For adenoid cystic carcinoma, the concurrent finding of different forms coexisting within any given tumor precludes reliable and consistent grading and a two-tiered simplified system based on the presence or absence of a solid component was adopted [11, 12].

Furthermore, a decision to omit the deterministic “low grade” designation was made. This particularly pertains to polymorphous adenocarcinoma where labelling this lesion as low grade would preclude patients with an occasionally observed aggressive clinical behavior from being enrolled in clinical trials of high-grade salivary carcinomas [13, 14, 15]. Additionally, considerable efforts were made to place rare subtypes of adenocarcinoma under a single pathologic entity especially those with similar clinical characteristics and behavior. Among these are adenocarcinoma subtypes including intestinal-type, cribriform, and mucinous adenocarcinomas which were placed under Adenocarcinoma, NOS [16, 17].

The only new entity accepted in this chapter is secretory carcinoma (mammary analogue secretory carcinomas) as an entity separate from acinic cell carcinoma. In the past, the lack of firm features to classify these tumors has led to empirically include them with acinic carcinoma as the most closely related phenotype [18, 19]. Nowadays, a sufficient number of publications have detailed the morphologic features, immunohistochemical markers, and the molecular identification of the ETV6-NTRK-3 fusion in multiple variable techniques, justifying its recognition as a new entity [20, 21]. Given the multi-lineage nature of this fusion and its association with mesenchymal, lymphoreticular, and epithelial neoplasms, its diagnostic role in this entity is unclear. The ETV6-NTRK3 fusion transcript, however, induces the activation of critical cellular pathways involved in proliferation, apoptosis, and migration which can be targeted by small molecule inhibitors in future management of advanced disease [22, 23].

Among the morphologic spectrum of polymorphous adenocarcinoma, a cribriform-papillary component with clear nuclear features is variably present. In view of this, some authors have advocated to acknowledge the existence of a predominantly cribriform subtype with distinctive aggressive behavior that should be separated from polymorphous adenocarcinoma. A consensus agreement on whether to accept this form was not reached and, therefore, this variant was provisionally put within the rubric of “emerging entities.” [14] Also, an attempt to specify the type of carcinoma arising within pleomorphic adenoma has been made. To clarify the generic diagnosis of carcinoma ex. pleomorphic adenoma, requirements to specify the type and nature of the carcinoma component as well as the extent of extracapsular spread were introduced, emphasizing the need to distinguish between intracapsular, minimally invasive, and widely invasive lesions [24].

Throughout this chapter, the discussions of lineage and immune-based markers were limited to those with practical diagnostic relevance. While acknowledging the importance of molecular markers in the future assessment of salivary gland tumors, the present lack of clinical utility precludes their use in current clinical practice. Accordingly, the discussion of genetic alterations including the presence of fusion genes and their relevance was aimed to be informative in the context of their potential biological and therapeutic implications.


  1. 1.
    El-Naggar AK, JKC C, Grandis JR, Takata T, Grandis J, Slootweg P (eds) (2017) WHO classification of head and neck tumours, 4th edn. Lyon, IARCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Speight PM, Takata T (2018) New tumour entities in the 4th edition of the World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumours: odontogenic and maxillofacial bone tumours. Virchows ArchGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson LDR, Franchi A (2018) New tumor entities in the 4th edition of the World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumors: nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses and skull base. Virchows ArchGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnes L, Eveson JW, Reichart P, Sidransky D (2005) WHO classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the head and neck, 3rd edn. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canas Marques R, Félix A (2014) Invasive carcinoma arising from sclerosing polycystic adenosis of the salivary gland. Virchows Arch 464:621–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinreb I, Seethala RR, Hunt JL, Chetty R, Dardick I, Perez-Ordoñez B (2009) Intercalated duct lesions of salivary gland: a morphologic spectrum from hyperplasia to adenoma. Am J Surg Pathol 33:1322–1329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vazquez A, Khan MN, Sanghvi S, Patel NR, Caputo JL, Baredes S, Eloy JA (2015) Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue of the salivary glands: a population-based study from 1994 to 2009. Head Neck 37:18–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brannon RB, Sciubba JJ, Giulani M (2001) Ductal papillomas of salivary gland origin: a report of 19 cases and a review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92:68–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noseri H, Erden T, Toros S, Habesoglu M, Egeli E, Aker F, Cetin S (2007) Intraductal papilloma of the parotid gland in a child. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:1385–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McHugh CH, Roberts DB, El-Naggar AK, Hanna EY, Garden AS, Kies MS et al (2012) Prognostic factors in mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the salivary glands. Cancer 118:3928–3936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seethala RR, Hunt JL, Baloch ZW, Livolsi VA, Leon Barnes E (2007) Adenoid cystic carcinoma with high-grade transformation: a report of 11 cases and a review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol 31:1683–1694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Weert S, van der Waal I, Witte BI, Leemans CR, Bloemena E, van WS (2015) Histopathological grading of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: analysis of currently used grading systems and proposal for a simplified grading scheme. Oral Oncol 51:71–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kimple AJ, Austin GK, Shah RN, Welch CM, Funkhouser WK, Zanation AM, Shockley WW (2014) Polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma: a case series and determination of recurrence. Laryngoscope 124:2714–2719CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel TD, Vazquez A, Marchiano E, Park RC, Baredes S, Eloy JA (2015) Polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma of the head and neck: a population-based study of 460 cases. Laryngoscope 125:1644–1649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seethala RR, Johnson JT, Barnes EL, Myers EN (2010) Polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma: the University of Pittsburgh experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136:385–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bell D, Kupferman ME, Williams MD, Rashid A, El-Naggar AK (2009) Primary colonic-type adenocarcinoma of the base of the tongue: a previously unreported phenotype. Hum Pathol 40:1798–1802CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gillenwater AM, Frank SJ, Fatani H, El-Naggar AK (2013) Primary intestinal-like adenocarcinoma of major salivary glands: 2 instances of previously undocumented phenotype. Head Neck 35:E234–E236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patel NR, Sanghvi S, Khan MN, Husain Q, Baredes S, Eloy JA (2014) Demographic trends and disease-specific survival in salivary acinic cell carcinoma: an analysis of 1129 cases. Laryngoscope 124:172–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chiosea SI, Griffith C, Assaad A, Seethala RR (2012) The profile of acinic cell carcinoma after recognition of mammary analog secretory carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 36:343–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skálová A, Vanecek T, Sima R, Laco J, Weinreb I, Perez-Ordonez B, Starek I, Geierova M, Simpson RH, Passador-Santos F, Ryska A, Leivo I, Kinkor Z, Michal M (2010) Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma of salivary glands, containing the ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene: a hitherto undescribed salivary gland tumor entity. Am J Surg Pathol 34:599–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chiosea SI, Griffith C, Assaad A, Seethala RR (2012) Clinicopathological characterization of mammary analogue secretory carcinoma of salivary glands. Histopathology 61:387–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Majewska H, Skálová A, Stodulski D, Klimková A, Steiner P, Stankiewicz C, Biernat W (2015) Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma of salivary glands: a new entity associated with ETV6 gene rearrangement. Virchows Arch 466:245–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shah AA, Wenig BM, LeGallo RD, Mills SE, Stelow EB (2015) Morphology in conjunction with immunohistochemistry is sufficient for the diagnosis of mammary analogue secretory carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol 9:85–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiler C, Zengel P, van der Wal JE, Guntinas-Lichius O, Schwarz S, Harrison JD, Kirchner T, Ihrler S (2011) Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma with special reference to the prognostic significance of histological progression: a clinicopathological investigation of 41 cases. Histopathology 59:741–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.MD Anderson Cancer CenterUniversity of TexasHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations