4.2 Article

Oral Solitary Fibrous Tumor: A Retrospective Clinico-Pathological Study and Long-Term Follow-Up

Journal

MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57020152

Keywords

solitary fibrous tumor; hemangiopericytoma; oral cavity; CD34; immunohistochemistry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study analyzed the clinical and histological features of oral solitary fibrous tumors (SFT), with a total of 7 cases identified. All cases were non-aggressive in presentation and were successfully treated with local excision, showing no recurrences during the follow-up period ranging from 2 to 74 months.
Background and Objectives: This was a retrospective single-center study to analyze and describe the clinical and histological features of all cases of oral solitary fibrous tumor (SFT). Study design: the study included all consecutive cases of oral SFT diagnosed between 2008-2018 at a single tertiary center. Materials and Methods: Clinical data was retrieved from medical charts. The diagnosis of oral SFT was based upon the morphologic features of the lesions, in routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections and confirmed by immunohistochemical analyses including CD34, CD99, Bcl2, and stains for STAT6. Results: Seven cases of oral SFT were found. Of these, three (42%) were in males and four (58%) in females. The age range was 24-63 years (mean 47 +/- 13). Four (58%) lesions were located in the buccal mucosa, two (28%) in the labial mucosa and one (14%) on the floor of the mouth. The diameter ranged between 3-50 mm (mean 22 +/- 14 mm). All patients were treated with local excision. Follow-up periods were between 2-74 months (mean 41 +/- 27). No recurrences were reported. Conclusions: We present a series of oral SFT, which were all non-aggressive in presentation and did not recur after conservative surgery (local excision) over a relatively long follow-up period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available