You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Case report
Solitary neurofibroma of the larynx: a diagnostic challenge
  1. Bruno Cunha1,
  2. Ricardo Pacheco2,
  3. Isabel Fonseca3 and
  4. Alexandra Borges4
  1. 1Neuroradiology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Portugal
  2. 2Otolaryngology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal
  3. 3Pathology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal
  4. 4Radiology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alexandra Borges; borgalexandra{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Solitary neurofibromas of the larynx are extremely rare, with a total of 15 cases described in the literature. Nonetheless, acquaintance with this diagnosis is important, as misdiagnoses can have negative consequences. Presenting symptoms are non-specific and depend on tumour size and location. As well-defined submucosal masses with a broad differential diagnosis, they remain a clinical and radiological challenge. While some characteristics might favour a benign nature and subtle signs might help narrow the differential diagnosis, imaging alone is not sufficient for differentiation and definitive diagnosis requires a biopsy. Complete surgical resection and long-term follow-up is indicated. We share our experience on a case of a solitary laryngeal neurofibroma in a middle-aged woman, presenting with a large well-defined paraglottic lesion.

  • ear
  • nose and throat/otolaryngology
  • head and neck cancer
  • radiology
  • head and neck surgery
  • peripheral nerve disease

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2020-236682

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors BC: reviewed the subject, collected the images and wrote and reviewed the manuscript. RP: consulting surgeon responsible for the surgery, clinical management and follow-up of the patient and reviewed the manuscript. IF: made the pathologic diagnosis and reviewed all the pathology specimens available and reviewed the pathology part of the manuscript. AB: conceptualised the manuscript, reviewed the images and helped in writing and reviewing the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.