2016
DOI: 10.5336/dermato.2015-48340
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Giant Fibroepithelial Polyp of Vulva: Scientifific Letter

Abstract: 148esenchymal tumours of the vulvovaginal region range from benign to locally aggressive and malignant tumors. Benign tumors of the vulva are relatively uncommon, constituting a large spectrum of tumors such as angiofibroma, angiomyofibroblastoma, lymphangioma and schwannoma.1-3 Fibroepithelial polyp (acrochordon, fibrolipoma, soft fibroma) is a benign neoplastic/hamartomatous polypoid mass of vulva. 4Although it is a common cutaneous lesion which has a propensity for axilla, neck, groin, eyelids and chest, is… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies hypothesized that the etiology was related to tissue damage and a subsequent delayed differentiation of myofibroblast stromal cells, which can cause granulation tissue that turns into polyps 3 . According to Ahmedmaulin, FEVP are thought to arise from a regressing nevus or as a response to an unspecified irritative status, especially in overweight patients, 12 as was our patient. However, in the medical history of our patient, vulvar regressing nevi have not been described.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Studies hypothesized that the etiology was related to tissue damage and a subsequent delayed differentiation of myofibroblast stromal cells, which can cause granulation tissue that turns into polyps 3 . According to Ahmedmaulin, FEVP are thought to arise from a regressing nevus or as a response to an unspecified irritative status, especially in overweight patients, 12 as was our patient. However, in the medical history of our patient, vulvar regressing nevi have not been described.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%