↓ Skip to main content

Cellular angiofibroma of the vulva: a poorly known entity, a case report and literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Clinical Pathology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cellular angiofibroma of the vulva: a poorly known entity, a case report and literature review
Published in
BMC Clinical Pathology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12907-016-0030-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mouna Khmou, Najat Lamalmi, Abderrahmane Malihy, Lamia Rouas, Zaitouna Alhamany

Abstract

Cellular angiofibroma represents a newly described, site specific tumor. Histologically, CAF is a benign mesenchymal neoplasm characterized by two principal components: bland spindle cells and prominent small to medium-sized vessels with mural hyalinization. The indolent nature of the lesion is underscored by the uniformity of its constituent stromal cells, and their lack of nuclear atypia. Characterization by immunohistochemistry is helpful distinguishing Cellular angiofibroma from other mesenchymal lesions. We report the case of a 37-year-old woman, presenting with a painless nodule involving the vulva. This lesion had gradually increased in size; a simple excision was performed, and follow up was unremarkable. Gross examination showed a well circumscribed, firm tumor measuring 3× 3 × 2,5 cm. Histologically, the tumor was composed of uniform, short spindle-shaped cells, proliferating in an edematous to fibrous stroma and numerous small to medium-sized thick-walled vessels. A panel of immunohistochemical stains was performed, and confirmed the diagnosis of Cellular angiofibroma. In this report we aim to describe the clinical, pathological and immunohistochemical features of this rare entity through a literature review, and to discuss other vulvar mesenchymal lesions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 2 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 57%
Unknown 3 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,377,214
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pathology
#56
of 116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,809
of 339,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pathology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 116 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.