Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
CASE
REPORT
–
OPEN
ACCESS
International
Journal
of
Surgery
Case
Reports
62
(2019)
54–57
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
International
Journal
of
Surgery
Case
Reports
j
ourna
l
h
om
epage:
www.casereports.com
A
rare
case
of
sinonasal
glomangiopericytoma
post
operative
accidental
diagnosis
and
managment—A
case
report
Nitin
Sharmaa,∗,
Dushyant
Mandlika,
Purvi
Patela,
Parin
Patela,
Aditya
Joshipuraa,
Mitesh
Patela,
Srinal
Mankiwalaa,
Ashutosh
Vatsyayana,
Tulika
Dubeya,
Kintan
Sanghvia,
Diva
Shaha,
Shubhada
Kanherea,
Shailesh
Talatib,
Kaustubh
Patela
aHCG
Cancer
Center,
Sola,
Ahmedabad,
Gujarat,
India
bHemato
Oncology
Clinic,
Ahmedabad,
Gujarat,
India
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
25
April
2019
Received
in
revised
form
27
June
2019
Accepted
30
June
2019
Available
online
9
August
2019
Keywords:
Glomangiopericytoma
Haemangiopericytoma
Nasal
Tumor
Endoscopic
sinus
surgery
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
INTRODUCTION:
Glomangiopericytoma
is
a
rare
neoplasm
of
low
malignant
potential.
It
is
a
rare
type
of
haemangiopericytoma
located
in
nasal
cavity.
This
neoplasm
has
good
prognosis
and
complete
surgical
excision
is
treatment
of
choice.
This
case
report
is
representing
one
such
neoplasm.
This
reporting
is
done
in
line
with
the
SCARE
criteria
(Agha
et
al.,
2018
[1]).
CASE
PRESENTATION:
We
presenting
a
case
of
54
year
old
male
patient
from
upper
socioeconomic
status
who
presented
at
our
institution
with
history
of
surgery
(endoscopic
sinus
surgery
with
Septoplasty)
15
days
back.
A
Final
histopathology
report
suggested
glomangiopericytoma.
Since
primary
surgery
was
not
done
as
per
oncologic
principals,
patient
was
advised
for
adjuvant
radiation.
At
our
institute
patient
was
evaluated
again.
Revision
surgery
was
done.
Patient
was
discharged
next
day.
DISCUSSION:
Glomangiopericytoma
is
a
rare
neoplasm
with
incidence
of
less
than
0.5%
of
all
neoplasms
of
sinonasal
cavity.
Prognosis
is
very
good
after
complete
surgical
excision.
It
often
confuses
clinicians
with
nasal
polyps.
Here
also
patient
was
operated
initially
considering
as
benign
polyposis
outside.
Patient
was
re-operated
again
to
ensure
the
complete
clearance.
CONCLUSION:
This
is
the
typical
case
of
converting
dual
modality
treatment
to
single
modality
with
the
help
of
knowledge,
communication,
transparent
team
work.
This
also
a
rare
type
of
neoplasm
and
by
reporting
this
rare
case
we
are
contributing
to
data
pool
of
nasal
tumors
where
lack
of
reporting
is
major
obstacle
in
the
formation
of
uniform
treatment
guidelines.
©
2019
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd
on
behalf
of
IJS
Publishing
Group
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1.
Case
This
is
a
case
of
65
year
old
male
who
presented
in
outpa-
tient
department
in
tertiary
care
institute.
He
was
known
case
of
bronchial
asthma
and
had
history
of
myocardial
infarction
seven
years
back.
Presently
he
was
on
anti-platelet
medication.
Patient
was
operated
outside
for
septoplasty
and
functional
endoscopic
sinus
surgery
(FESS)
25
days
back.
Patient
was
referred
by
medical
oncologist
for
surgical
opinion
about
further
management.
Present-
ing
symptoms
were
pain
in
nasal
cavity
with
occasional
bloody
discharge.
The
previous
surgery
was
done
by
otolaryngologist.
CT
scan
done
prior
to
the
first
surgery
was
reported
as
polypoidal
mucosal
thickening
in
sphenoid
sinus
with
complete
opacifica-
tion.
There
was
hyperdensity
without
any
abnormal
enhancement
but
mild
focal
extension
of
soft
tissue
was
seen
in
sphenoeth-
moidal
recess
left
side
and
protruding
into
nasopharynx.
There
∗Corresponding
author.
E-mail
address:
nitinentkota@yahoo.com
(N.
Sharma).
was
neither
erosion
of
seller
floor
nor
intracranial
extension.
No
histopathology
report
was
done
prior
to
the
surgery.
The
final
histopathology
report
after
the
surgery
was
reported
as
respiratory
mucosa
with
a
submucosal
tumor
with
plasmacytoid
and
focally
spindled
morphology
in
myxoid
to
vascularized
stroma
and
differ-
ential
diagnosis
was
given
as
minor
salivary
gland
neoplasm,
nasal
tumor
and
extraosseous
myeloma
(Figs.
1
and
2).
His
Immunohistocytochemistry
(IHC)
was
reported
positive
for
SMA
but
negative
for
desmin,CD-34,
S-100
protein,
cytokeratin
and
EMA
and
concluded
as
glomangiopericytoma.
Immunohisto
cyto-
chemistry
(IHC)
was
done
at
one
more
place
where
tumor
was
reported
positive
for
SMA
and
beta
catenin
but
negative
for
synap-
tophysin,
P40,
P63,
S100,
CK7,
MUM1,
DESMIN,
CD
99,
CD34
and
CD31
and
concluded
as
borderline/low
grade
malignant
soft
tissue
tumor:
sinonasal
glomangiopericytoma.
After
this
report
patient
was
referred
to
the
radiation
oncologist
for
adjuvant
radiation
as
primary
surgeon
was
not
sure
of
complete
excision.
Through
a
com-
mon
medical
oncologist
friend
patient
was
referred
to
us.
At
our
centre
on
examination
we
found
operated
cavity
full
of
granula-
tion
tissue.
It
was
difficult
to
establish
complete
surgical
excision
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.06.066
2210-2612/©
2019
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd
on
behalf
of
IJS
Publishing
Group
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/).
CASE
REPORT
–
OPEN
ACCESS
N.
Sharma
et
al.
/
International
Journal
of
Surgery
Case
Reports
62
(2019)
54–57
55
Fig.
1.
Respiratory
epithelium
and
subepithelial
sheets
of
oval
tumor
cells
arrange
themselves
around
blood
vessels.
(H&E
X
40).
Fig.
2.
Oval
tumor
cells
around
blood
vessels
show
very
minimal
atypia.
(H&E
X
100).
Fig.
3.
Post
first
surgery
magnetic
resonance
imaging
with
contrast
coronal
section
of
paranasal
sinus.
clinically
which
was
very
important
in
this
case.
Patient
underwent
MR
scan
to
rule
out
the
presence
of
any
residual
disease.
The
MRI
was
reported
as
ill
defined
low
signal
intensity
areas
in
posterior-
superior
aspect
of
left
nasal
cavity
and
sphenoethmoidal
recess
most
likely
the
postoperative
granulation
tissue/fibrosis.
Still
they
advised
for
clinical
correlation
(Figs.
3–5).
Now
the
challenges
were.
1
We
wanted
to
avoid
radiation
but
that
can
be
done
only
after
the
establishment
of
complete
clearance.
2
Radiologists
were
not
sure
about
complete
excision.
3
It
was
very
difficult
to
differentiate
between
the
residual
disease
and
postoperative
granulation
tissue
clinically.
Fig.
4.
Post
first
surgery
magnetic
resonance
imaging
with
contrast
axial
section
of
paranasal
sinus.
Fig.
5.
Endoscopic
image
after
first
surgery
and
before
second
(revision)
surgery
showing
granulation
tissue
at
posterior
part
of
septum,
floor
of
sphenoid
sinus
and
adjacent
lateral
nasal
wall.
4
One
opinion
was
to
wait
till
granulation
tissue
heals
but
in
that
case
patient
was
losing
the
golden
time
for
commencement
of
radiation.
5
Going
again
in
recently
operated
cavity
is
itself
challenge
but
only
complete
clearance
offers
the
best
chance
of
cure.
All
these
issues
were
discussed
in
tumor
board
where
it
was
decided
to
establish
that
there
was
no
residual
tumor.
This
case
was
also
discussed
with
the
patient
and
his
son.
After
through
dis-
cussion
and
fully
informed
consent
it
was
decided
to
go
for
revision
surgery
with
frozen
section
to
achieve
360◦clearance.
As
per
plan
patient
was
operated
again
endoscopically
and
entire
granulation
tissue
was
excised
and
subjected
to
frozen
section
along
with
normal
mucosal
margins.
Frozen
section
was
reported
negative
for
residual
disease.
Entire
hospital
stay
was
uneventful
and
patient
was
discharged
on
second
postoperative
day.
Final
histopathology
report
was
negative
for
residual
disease
and
all
the
margins
and
tumor
bed
mucosa
was
free
from
tumor.
CASE
REPORT
–
OPEN
ACCESS
56
N.
Sharma
et
al.
/
International
Journal
of
Surgery
Case
Reports
62
(2019)
54–57
Fig.
6.
Endoscopic
image
after
one
year
(revision
surgery)
showing
well
healed
mucosa
in
nasal
cavity
at
posterior
part
of
septum,
floor
of
sphenoid
sinus,
and
adjacent
lateral
nasal
wall.
Patient
was
now
advised
for
observation
instead
on
adjuvant
radi-
ation.
Since
then
patient
is
in
regular
follow
with
for
last
9
months
with
us
and
he
is
disease
free.
Patient
had
also
underwent
post
sec-
ond
surgery
MRI
which
was
reported
negative
for
disease
(Fig.
6).
2.
Discussion
Any
mass
in
a
nasal
cavity
is
very
thrilling
for
endoscopic
sur-
geon.
Mild
symptoms
and
causal
approach
of
both
clinicians
and
patient
create
room
for
surprises.
Most
of
the
time
unilateral
soft,
insensitive
and
grayish
mass
is
nasal
polyp
but
not
always.
Here
we
present
a
case
where
a
nasal
mass
with
same
characteristics
was
operated
by
a
endoscopic
surgeon
considering
this
as
sinonasal
polyp
and
later
in
final
histopathology
report
it
turned
out
as
glo-
mangiopericytoma.
The
incidence
of
glomangiopericytoma
is
less
than
0.5%
of
all
sinonasal
tumors
[2].
Glomangiopericytoma
as
name
suggests
originates
from
pericytes
[2].
Pericytes
are
cells
in
the
walls
of
capillaries
[3].
Glomangioperi-
cytoma
behaves
as
indolent
tumor
and
confuses
the
clinicians
due
to
appearance
similar
to
inflammatory
polyps
[4].
The
first
case
was
reported
in
1942
by
Staut
and
Murray
and
was
classified
as
hemangiopericytoma
[5].
In
1905
WHO
recognised
this
as
a
separate
entity
[4].
As
ini-
tial
surgery
was
done
considering
lesion
as
inflammatory
polyp.
Although
it
was
done
with
computed
tomography
of
paranasal
sinus
but
without
contrast
study
and
without
prior
biopsy
of
nasal
mass.
No
intraoperative
frozen
section
was
sent.
Patient
and
relatives
were
not
explained
about
possibility
of
lesion
being
malignant
on
final
histopathology
and
a
second
wide
excision
or
adjuvant
treatment.
Final
histopathology
and
immunohistochem-
istry
turned
out
surprise
as
glomangiopericytoma.
Treatment
of
choice
for
glomangiopericytoma
is
complete
surgical
excision
of
tumor
[6]
and
adjuvant
treatment
is
generally
required
if
tumor
is
excised
incompletely.
In
series
of
104
patient
Thompson
has
reported
survival
rate
of
74.2
percent
at
5
years
with
recurrence
rate
is
17
percent
[7].
In
this
case
neither
tumor
margins
nor
com-
plete
excision
was
sure
that
is
why
adjuvant
treatment
was
advised
by
treating
surgeon.
To
avoid
the
adjuvant
treatment
and
morbidity
associated
with
it
with
the
consent
of
the
patient
revision
surgery
was
done.
In
second
surgery
complete
excision
with
clear
margins
was
ensured.
Thus
we
saved
the
patient
from
adjuvant
treatment
and
it’s
morbidity.
There
are
several
reasons
for
is
to
report
this
case.
On
reviewing
literature
we
did
find
too
many
cases
of
gloman-
giopericytoma.
Many
more
case
reports
are
required
to
generate
adequate
data
pool.
This
is
the
example
of
teamwork
where
the
final
goal
of
the
team
was
to
do
best
for
the
patient
and
we
did
it.
So
for
us
the
take
home
message
from
this
case
is
that
there
should
be
a
comprehensive
care
for
any
tumor
then
only
we
can
provide
best
to
the
patient.
3.
Conclusion
Glomangiopericytoma
is
rare
indolent
kind
of
neoplasm.
The
treatment
of
choice
for
glomangiopericytoma
is
surgery.
The
best
can
only
be
achieved
if
you
work
in
team.
More
and
more
reporting
of
cases
will
help
in
making
definitive
guidelines
for
the
treatment
for
glomangiopericytoma.
Funding
We
wish
to
confirm
that
there
has
been
no
significant
financial
support
for
this
work
that
could
have
influenced
its
outcome.
Ethical
approval
Not
applicable
for
this
case
report.
Consent
I
wish
to
confirm
that
the
written
and
informed
consent
from
the
patient
has
been
taken
from
the
patient
to
publish
this
case
report.
Author
contribution
Dr.
Nitin
Sharma-
performed
the
surgery.
Prepare
the
case
report.
Dr.
Dushyant
Mandlik
-
communication
with
the
patient
and
preparation
of
case
report.
Dr.
Purvi
Patel
-
post
operative
care.
Dr.
Parin
Patel
-
planning.
Dr.
Aditya
Joshipura-post
operative
care.
Dr.
Mitesh
Patel
-
post
operative
care.
Dr.
Srinal
Mankiwala
-
assistant
surgeon.
Dr.
Ashutosh
Vatsayayan
-
assistant
surgeon.
Dr.
Tulika
Dubey-
arranging
pathology
pictures.
Dr.
Kintan
Sanghvi
-
pathology
report
and
pictures.
Dr.
Diva
Shah
-
radiology
work
up
and
pictures.
Dr.
Shubhada
Kanhere
-
pathology
pictures.
Dr.
Shailesh
Talati
-
planing
and
management.
Dr.
Kaustubh
Patel
-
planning
the
management
and
concept.
Registration
of
research
studies
Not
applicable
for
this
case
report.
Guarantor
Dr.
Dushyant
Mandlik.
Provenance
and
peer
review
Not
commissioned,
externally
peer-reviewed.
CASE
REPORT
–
OPEN
ACCESS
N.
Sharma
et
al.
/
International
Journal
of
Surgery
Case
Reports
62
(2019)
54–57
57
Declaration
of
Competing
Interest
We
wish
to
draw
the
attention
of
the
Editor
to
the
following
facts
which
may
be
considered
as
potential
conflicts
of
interest
and
to
significant
financial
contributions
to
this
work.
References
[1]
R.A.
Agha,
M.R.
Borrelli,
R.
Farwana,
K.
Koshy,
A.
Fowler,
D.P.
Orgill,
For
the
SCARE
Group,
The
SCARE
2018
statement:
updating
consensus
surgical
CAse
REport
(SCARE)
guidelines,
Int.
J.
Surg.
60
(2018)
132–136.
[2]
Ozan
Gökdo˘
gan,
An
unusual
mass
of
nasal
cavity:
recurrent
glomangiopericytoma,
Turk.
J.
Ear
Nose
Throat
25
(4)
(2015)
240–244,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.5606/kbbihtisas.2015.43433.
[3]
David
Attwell,
et
al.,
What
is
a
pericyte?
J.
Cereb.
Blood
Flow
Metab.
36
(2)
(2015)
451–455,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271678x15610340.
[4]
Elizabeth
Psoma,
et
al.,
Sinonasal
glomangiopericytoma
treated
with
preoperative
embolisation
and
endoscopic
sinus
surgery,
Ecancermedicalscience
10
(November)
(2016)
692,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/
ecancer.2016.692,
1–6.
[5]
Arthur
Purdy
Stout,
Margaret
R.
Murray,
Hemangiopericytoma:
a
vascular
tumor
featuring
zimmermann’s
pericytes,
Ann.
Surg.
116
(1)
(1942)
26–33,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000658-194207000-00004.
[6]
Panagiotis
Asimakopoulos,
et
al.,
Sinonasal
glomangiopericytoma:
is
anything
new?
Ear
Nose
Throat
J.
95
(2)
(2016)
E1–E6,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014556131609500202.
[7]
Lester
D.R.
Thompson,
et
al.,
Sinonasal-type
hemangiopericytoma,
Am.
J.
Surg.
Pathol.
27
(6)
(2003)
737–749,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000478-
200306000-00004.
Open
Access
This
article
is
published
Open
Access
at
sciencedirect.com.
It
is
distributed
under
the
IJSCR
Supplemental
terms
and
conditions,
which
permits
unrestricted
non
commercial
use,
distribution,
and
reproduction
in
any
medium,
provided
the
original
authors
and
source
are
credited.