Koutlas Ioannis G, Scheithauer Bernd W
Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 515 Delaware Street SE, 16-108A, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Head Neck Pathol. 2010 Mar;4(1):15-26. doi: 10.1007/s12105-010-0162-x. Epub 2010 Jan 23.
We describe the clinicopathologic characteristics of 55 oral palisaded encapsulated (solitary circumscribed) neuromas (PEN/SCN). Fifty-five cases of PEN/SCN in 54 patients were reviewed. Lesions were categorized according to their histologic pattern, partial or complete encapsulation, presence of Verocay bodies and presence of a parent peripheral nerve. In 13 selected cases immunohistochemical evaluation for neuronal markers (S-100, GFAP, NFP, EMA) was performed. When immunoreaction with EMA was weak, claudin-1 and glut-1 stains were utilized. Thirty-eight patients were men and 16 were women. Mean patient age was 48 years (SD: +/-14). The vast majority involved the masticatory (palate and gingiva) mucosa (76.4%) followed by the labial mucosa, the tongue and buccal mucosa. Recurrence was recorded in only one case. Histologically, 34 lesions had a lobular pattern, 10 were plexiform, 7 fungating and 4 multilobular. Stroma was limited, but focal myxoid changes were seen at the periphery of the lobules. Only one predominantly myxoid lesion was encountered. The number of intralesional axons varied, but the ratio of Schwann cells to axons was generally less than 1:2. Most lesions (89%) were only partially surrounded by perineurium. Tumor cells were S-100 positive and GFAP negative. The parent nerve was identified in 50% of the cases. Overlying epithelium was generally atrophic. Peritumoral connective tissue was generally unremarkable, but chronic inflammation was present in five cases. PEN/SCN is a relatively common peripheral nerve sheath tumor. Generally, its diagnosis is simple. GFAP may be of help to distinguish PEN/SCN from other peripheral nerve sheath tumors (schwannoma, neurofibroma, traumatic neuroma) in cases where histomorphologic features may be confusing. Finally, pathologists should be aware of the occurrence of plexiform and multilobular PEN/SCN variants, to avoid misinterpretation as plexiform neurofibroma or schwannoma.
我们描述了55例口腔栅栏状包膜(孤立性局限性)神经瘤(PEN/SCN)的临床病理特征。对54例患者中的55例PEN/SCN病例进行了回顾性研究。根据病变的组织学模式、部分或完全包膜、Verocay小体的存在以及是否存在母周围神经对病变进行分类。在13例选定的病例中,进行了神经元标志物(S-100、GFAP、NFP、EMA)的免疫组化评估。当与EMA的免疫反应较弱时,采用claudin-1和glut-1染色。38例患者为男性,16例为女性。患者平均年龄为48岁(标准差:±14)。绝大多数病变累及咀嚼(腭和牙龈)黏膜(76.4%),其次为唇黏膜、舌和颊黏膜。仅1例有复发记录。组织学上,34个病变呈小叶状模式,10个为丛状,7个呈蕈样,4个为多小叶状。间质有限,但在小叶周边可见局灶性黏液样改变。仅遇到1例主要为黏液样的病变。瘤内轴突数量各异,但施万细胞与轴突的比例通常小于1:2。大多数病变(89%)仅部分被神经束膜包绕。肿瘤细胞S-100阳性,GFAP阴性。50%的病例中可识别出母神经。上皮通常萎缩。肿瘤周围结缔组织一般无明显异常,但5例存在慢性炎症。PEN/SCN是一种相对常见的周围神经鞘瘤。一般来说,其诊断简单。在组织形态学特征可能混淆的情况下(如神经鞘瘤、神经纤维瘤、创伤性神经瘤),GFAP可能有助于将PEN/SCN与其他周围神经鞘瘤区分开来。最后,病理学家应注意丛状和多小叶状PEN/SCN变异型的出现,以避免误诊为丛状神经纤维瘤或神经鞘瘤。