4.1 Article

Fine-needle aspiration of neurilemoma (Schwannoma).: A clinicocytopathologic study of 116 patients

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 403-412

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20449

Keywords

neurilemoma; schwannoma; ancient neurilemoma; fine-needle aspiration; nerve sheath neoplasm

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The preoperative fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) diagnoses in 116 surgically excised neurilemomas were reviewed and compared with the corresponding histopathologic diagnoses made on surgical specimens and with clinical data. In addition, the utility, of adjunctive techniques was analyzed and other spindle-cell lesions in the differential diagnoses were discussed. An unequivocal, benign diagnosis was rendered by FNAC in 80 cases, 67 of which were correctly labelled as neurilemoma in a review of the original cytology reports. There were 6 false-positive malignant diagnoses while 23 smears were considered insufficient and 7 inconclusive as to whether benign or malignant. On reevaluation, the diagnostic smears in most cases contained spindle cells with wavy nuclei embedded in a fibrillar, occasionally collagenous, and/or myxoid matrix and Antoni A/Antoni B tissue fragments. A moderate to abundant admixture of round to oval cells was also frequent. Nuclear palisading was seen in 41 smears with distinctive Verocay bodies in 10. Markedly pleomorphic nuclei were seen in smears from 8 ancient and 6 conventional neurilemomas, and slight to moderate nuclear pleomorphism was observed in 38 additional cases. Thus most neurilemomas have distinct cytomorphologic features that allow correct diagnosis. The major problem in FNAC of neurilemoma is to obtain sufficient material. Furthermore aspirates showing predominantly Antoni A features, nuclear pleomorphism, and/or myxoid changes can easily be confused with other types of benign or malignant soft-tissue tumors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available