Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Case report
  • Open Access

Endometriosis-associated clear cell carcinoma arising in caesarean section scar: a case report and review of the literature

  • 1, 2Email author,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 5,
  • 6,
  • 7,
  • 2 and
  • 7
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201614:300

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1054-7

  • Received: 14 October 2016
  • Accepted: 22 November 2016
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Malignant transformation has been reported in approximately 1% of the endometriosis cases; herein, we report a case of clear cell endometrial carcinoma arising from endometriosis foci located within a caesarean section scar.

Case presentation

In November 2014, a Caucasian, 44-year-old woman was transferred to our institution because of severe respiratory failure due to massive lung embolism and rapid enlargement of a subcutaneous suprapubic mass. Abdomino-pelvic magnetic resonance showed a 10.5 × 5.0 × 5.0 cm subcutaneous solid mass involving the rectus abdominis muscle. Pelvic organs appeared normal, while right external iliac lymph nodes appeared enlarged (maximum diameter = 16 mm). A whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan showed irregular uptake of the radiotracer in the 22 cm mass of the abdominal wall, and in enlarged external iliac and inguinal lymph nodes. In December 2014, the patient underwent exploratory laparoscopy showing normal adnexae and pelvic organs; peritoneal as well as cervical, endometrial and vesical biopsies were negative. The patient was administered neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel, weekly, without benefit and then underwent wide resection of the abdominal mass, partial removal of rectus abdominis muscle and fascia, radical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy. The muscular gap was repaired employing a gore-tex mesh while the external covering was made by a pedicled perforator fasciocutaneous anterolateral thigh flap. Final diagnosis was clear cell endometrial adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis foci within the caesarean section scar. Pelvic and inguinal lymph nodes were metastatic. Tumor cells were positive for CK7 EMA, CKAE1/AE3, CD15, CA-125, while immunoreaction for Calretinin, WT1, estrogen, and progesterone receptors, cytokeratin 20, CD10, alpha fetoprotein, CDX2, TTF1, and thyroglobulin were all negative. Liver relapse occurred after 2 months; despite 3 cycles of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (20 mg/m2, biweekly administration), the death of the patient disease occurred 1 month later.

Conclusions

Attention should be focused on careful evaluation of patient history in terms of pelvic surgery, and symptoms suggestive of endometriosis such as repeated occurrence of endometriosis nodules at CS scar, or cyclic pain, or volume changes of the nodules.

Keywords

  • Endometriosis
  • Clear Cell Carcinoma
  • Inguinal Lymph Node
  • Rectus Abdominis Muscle
  • Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma

Background

Malignant transformation has been reported in approximately 1% of the endometriosis cases, and most frequently this transformation takes place at the ovary, accounting for about 80% of the endometriosis-associated malignancies [1].

Endometriosis occurring in surgical abdominal scar has been mainly documented after caesarean section (CS) or hysterectomy (0.03 up to 0.4%), and its malignant transformation is very rare [2]: clear cell histology accounts for only 4.5% of extragonadal endometriosis-associated malignancies, while representing the most common histotype in case of parietal localization [1].

Given the rarity of malignant transformation of abdominal scar endometriosis to clear cell histology, pathogenesis and risk factors of this disease are hardly assessable [3]. Nonetheless, due to the increased rate of CS registered in the last years, we can expect a parallel increase of endometriosis implants in the CS scar and occurrence of clear cell carcinoma (CCC) of the abdominal wall.

Herein, we report a new case of CCC arising from endometriosis foci located within a CS scar; a systematic review of the available literature relative to this issue is also presented.

Case presentation

In November 2014, a Caucasian, 44-year-old woman was transferred to our institution from the emergency unit of another hospital where she had been successfully treated for a severe respiratory failure due to massive lung embolism and cardiogenic shock.

Her familial history was uneventful; she had undergone one caesarean section 9 years before without complications and had assumed oral contraceptives until the appearance of symptoms. She had never suffered from signs or symptoms of endometriosis.

The patient referred to have documented, since the last 5 months, the slow enlargement of a suprapubic mass at the CS scar (lower abdominal incision) and abdominal swelling.

In July 2014, she had already performed abdomino-pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing a 10.5×5.0×5.0 cm subcutaneous solid mass with cystic areas and internal septa involving the rectus abdominis muscle. The mass appeared strictly adherent to the uterus and recto-sigma. Pelvic organs appeared normal, while right external iliac lymph nodes appeared enlarged (short axis maximum diameter = 16 mm).

The patient had been already triaged to fine needle aspiration (FNA) of the mass which was suggestive of endometrial tubule-papillary carcinoma.

At physical examination, a suprapubic mass of almost 20 cm maximum diameter was documented close to the midpoint of the CS scar (Fig. 1a–c). Laboratory tests revealed normal levels of CEA, CA125, and squamous cell carcinoma antigen.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Clinical appearance of the patient at time of presentation (ac): a large mass (a, b) extended from the pubic symphysis to the umbilicus was evident; the mass appeared mainly solid with some cystic lesions on the surface. The caesarean section scar is evident (white arrow). Appearance of the abdominal reconstruction after 2 months from surgery (d)

Once the patient recovered from the acute phase of lung embolism and achieved haemodynamic compensation, a whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan was performed about 60 min after the intravenous administration of 18F-FDG (148 MBq), showing irregular/non-homogeneous uptake of the radiotracer in the 22 cm mass of the abdominal wall. Increased 18F-FDG uptake was also seen in enlarged external iliac and inguinal lymph nodes bilaterally (Fig. 2b, c, e, f). Abdomino-pelvic MRI performed in our institution documented normal uterus and adnexae, and confirmed the presence of the anterior abdominal wall mass composed of solid as well as locular areas; the mass completely infiltrated the rectus muscle of abdomen and extended up to the skin surface, while displacing intestinal loops. The cleavage planes neighboring the uterus and bladder appeared preserved as well as the inguinal, external iliac, and obturator lymph nodes (Fig. 2a, d).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Pre-surgical T2-weighted FSE sagittal MRI (a) documenting a supra-vesical pelvic mass extending into the anterior pelvic wall and showing non-homogeneous signal intensity and solid components. Sagittal CT (b) and fused 18F-FDG PET/CT (c) images showed non-homogeneous uptake in the 22 cm abdominal mass: in particular, intense abnormal 18F-FDG uptake was present in the caudal solid component of the mass, whereas an absent area of tracer uptake was evident in its cranial fluid component. Corresponding T2-weighted FSE axial MRI (d) confirmed the presence of a solid and partially fluid pelvic mass, and enlarged loco-regional lymph nodes (arrow). Axial CT (e) and fused 18F-FDG PET/CT images (f) showed intense tracer uptake in the solid component of the mass, extended up to the skin surface of pelvis, and enlarged left external iliac lymph-node, characterized by increased tracer uptake (arrows)

In December 2014, the patient underwent exploratory laparoscopy showing normal adnexae and pelvic organs; peritoneal as well as cervical, endometrial, and vesical biopsies were negative.

Considering the results of FNA suggesting primary Müllerian-derived carcinoma and the extent of disease whose radical resection would require widely demolitive surgical procedures, the patient was triaged to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin (AUC = 2), and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2), every week. After 3 cycles (9 administrations) MRI documented only a slight reduction of the mass and lymphadenopathies, thus leading to consider the need of a multidisciplinary approach with gynecologic and medical oncologists, surgeons, and plastic surgeons in order to plan the most adequate patient treatment. After a thorough evaluation, radical surgery with reconstruction was planned, and an extensive counseling was carried out with the patient and her relatives.

At the beginning of March 2015, the patient underwent wide resection of the abdominal mass, partial removal of rectus abdominis muscle and fascia; moreover, radical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) as well as inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy were performed.

At the end of surgery, the abdominal wall defect appeared as a round hole of 14 × 14 cm which involved the abdominal wall thickness completely. The muscular gap was repaired employing a gore-tex mesh anchored directly on the residual rectus muscles and sheets. The external covering had been planned by a pedicled perforator fasciocutaneous anterolateral thigh flap. The perforator vessels from the descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral artery had been preoperatively located, with ultrasound doppler sonography, at the level of the intermuscular lateral septum of the thigh. The right thigh was chosen as donor site because the perforators were more distal, thus allowing to lengthen the pedicle. The donor site, on the right thigh, was repaired both by direct closure, and a skin graft harvested from the contralateral thigh. Postoperative course of the wounds was uneventful and stitches were removed at 2 weeks. The patient was discharged after 18 days in good clinical conditions, and the cosmetic result was acceptable (Fig. 1d).

Macroscopically, the surgical specimen consisted of cutis and subcutaneous tissue which contained a capsulated tumor mass measuring 18 cm in maximum diameter, infiltrating the rectus abdominis muscle. The cut surface was whitish and showed areas of necrosis and hemorrhage. Histological examination of tissue samples revealed neoplastic proliferation of large-sized, epitheliomorphous cells with abundant clear or occasionally eosinophilic cytoplasm and prominent nucleoli. A remarkable degree of nuclear atypia with diffuse hyperchromasia and irregular nuclear contours, and cellular pleomorphism was evident throughout the whole lesion. Architecturally, the tumor featured a mixed pattern of growth, both solid and tubulocystic, occasionally including distinctive papillary areas with hyalinized stromal cores. The clear cells lining the papillae and the cystic spaces showed the characteristic hobnail appearance. A few eosinophilic hyaline globules were observed as well (Fig. 3a–c). Interestingly, sparse foci of endometriosis were present in the fibrous adipose tissue all around. Surgical margins were free of disease.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

The tumor displayed a mixed pattern of both tubulocystic and papillary growth, HE x5 (a), and HEx10 (b); cells were large with abundant clear or occasionally eosinophilic cytoplasm. Note the high-grade nuclear atypia, HEx20 (c); neoplastic cells showed positive cell membrane immunostaining for CK7 (x20) (d)

Immunohistochemical investigation showed positive tumor cell reaction for CK7 (Fig. 3d), EMA, CKAE1/AE3, CD15, CA-125. On the contrary, immunoreaction for Calretinin, WT1, estrogen, and progesterone receptors, cytokeratin 20, CD10, alpha fetoprotein, CDX2, TTF1, and thyroglobulin were all negative. Hence, the morphologic findings and the immunohistochemical results were consistent with a diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma most likely arising in the setting of an abdominal wall endometriosis. Lymph node involvement was documented in 7 out of 14 pelvic lymph nodes, and in 8 out of 11 inguinal lymph nodes.

After 2 months from surgery, the patient was submitted to total body CT scan in order to plan subsequent adjuvant treatment. Despite the absence of disease in the pelvis, CT scan documented the appearance of six neoplastic lesions (from 2.7 to 5.5 cm maximum diameter) in the liver. Treatment with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (20 mg/m2, biweekly administration) was started, and CT scan evaluation after 3 cycles showed the progression of hepatic involvement and appearance of ascites. The death of the patient disease occurred 1 month later.

Discussion

We have provided an additional patient to the series of 22 cases of endometriosis-associated CCC arising within CS scar, as reported in the literature [424]. Only 2 reports were not available from the requested authors.

Despite the rarity of this condition, the number of reported cases has increased over time (see Table 1) likely due to a higher attention focused on this disease, but also to the increased rate of CS and uterine surgeries documented over time. Therefore, more diffuse awareness of this condition and better understanding of its pathogenesis could be important to provide early diagnosis and more effective treatment.
Table 1

Clear cell carcinoma arising from endometriosis of the scar caesarean section

 

Age

Previous uterine surgeries

Months since symptoms

Size cm

FNA or biopsy

Primary treatment

Pathology

Adjuvant treatment

Relapse

Death

Schnieber Agner-Kolb 1986 [4]

40

1 CS 15 years before

WE, BSO, Hys

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Ovaries and uterus: negative

RT, progestins

Yes after 18 months

Hitti, 1996 [5]

46

1 CS 14 years before

1 CS 12 years before

6

WE, BSO, Hys

CCC + endometriosis

RT

No after 30 months

No after 30 months

Miller 1998 [6]

38

1 hysterotomy 9 years before

1 abortion 3 years before

1 CS 2 years before

8

4

CCC + endometriosis

WE, BSO, Hys omentectomy

Scar: CCC

Ovaries, uterus, omentum: negative

Margins: close

CIS-based CT

RT

No after 60 monthsd

No after 60 monthsd

Park 1999 [7]

56

1 CS 24 years

1 CS 20 years

5

WE

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

RT

Ishida 2003 [8]

56

1 CS 24 years

1 CS 20 years

7

10

Endometrial carcinoma

WE, Hys, BSO

Mass: CCC

Ovaries and uterus: negative

CIS-based CT

Yes after 24 monthsb

Sergent 2006 [9]

45

1 CS 25 years

1 CS 23 years

2 excisions of benign endometriosis nodules at the scar

17

20

WE, BSO,

later on: endometrial curettage

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Right ovary: benign endometriosis; left ovary and uterus: negative

Margins: 1 cm free

Not done

Yes early after surgerya

Yes after 6 months

Alberto 2006 [10]

38

1 CS 11 years

BSO, Hys for endometriosis

6

6

WE

CCC

Carbo/PTX

RT

Razzouk 2007 [11]

46

1 CS 26 years before

1 CS 24 years before

2 excisions of endometriosis nodules at the scar

>20

GnRh analogue without benefit WE, BSO

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Ovaries: negative

LN: 1 positive

Carbo/PTX

Yes during CT

Yes after 6 monthsb

Rust 2008 [12]

42

3 CS

Hys 5 years before

24

5

Carcinoma

WE

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Margins: 1 mm free

Not done

Bats 2008 [13]

38

1 CS 13 years before

1 excision of endometriosic nodule at the scar

10

Atypical cells

NACT (carbo/PTX)

No benefit WE, BSO, Hys, omentectomy

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Uterus: adenomyosis

Other specimens: negative

Margins: 2 mm free

Not done

Yes after 4 monthsa

Williams 2009 [14]

53

1 CS 17 years before

24

2.5

CCC (excisional biopsy)

WE of the scar, BSO, Hys, omentectomy

Inguinal/Pelvic LNctomy

Mass: CCC

Uterus, right ovary, omentum: negative, left ovary: teratoma

Inguinal LN: 7 positive/11

Pelvic LN: 8 positive/14

Carbo/PTX (4 cycles)

Yes after 3 monthsa

Yes after 11 monthsb

Bourdel 2010 [15]

43

1 CS 20 years before

1 CS 15 years before

1 excision of endometriosic nodule at the scar

9

9

WE, partial resection of pubic symphysis, umbilicus, right rectus abdomen, pelvic LN sampling

Later on: BSO, Hys

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Pelvic LN: multiple positive

Ovaries, uterus: negative

Carbo/PTX (6 cycles)

RT

Yes after 6 monthsd

Yes after 22 monthsb

Yan 2011 [16]

41

2 CS 5 years before

2 excisions of benign endometriosic nodule at the scar 1 year and 4 months before

4

9

Not done

Progestins without benefit WE

Mass: CCC

CT

No after 24 monthsd

No after 24 monthsd

Li 2012 [17]

49

1 CS 26 years before

25 years

9

Not done

WE, Hys, BSO

Mass: CCC

Uterus, ovaries: negative

Carbo/PTX (6 cycles)

Noc after 8 months

Noc after 8 months

Mert 2012 [19]

42

Tubal ligation, right ovariectomy

15

Tumor cells Mullerian origin

NACT (carbo/PTX) WE, left SO Hys, left Pelvic LNctomy Omentectomy

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Other organs: negative

Margins: free

Not done

No after 1 montha

No After 1 montha

 

51

2 CS Hys for myomas

12

6

Excisional biopsy CCC + endometriosis

BSO, Omental biopsy

Negative

Margins: free

RT

No after 31 monthsb

No after 31 monthsb

Shalin 2012 [18]

47

1 CS

10

3

CCC

WE, left ovary cystectomy, endometrial biopsy, pelvic LN sampling

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Ovarian cyst: endometriosis

Endometrium: negative

Pelvic LN: 2 positive/4

Margins: positive

CIS-based CT (6 cycles)

RT

Yes after 5 monthsb

No after 7 monthsb

Ijichi 2014 [20]

60

1 CS 37 years before

1 CS 35 years before

48

4

Atypical cells

WE

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Margins: free

Not done

Yes after 8 monthsa

No after 23 monthsa

Aust 2015 [21]

47

1 CS 16 years before

vaginal Hys 10 yearsbefore

6

10

WE Later on: BSO, pelvic, aortic LNctomy omentectomy

Mass: CCC

Ovaries and omentum: negative

LN:2 positive/48

Margins: free

Carbo/PTX (6 cycles)

No after 10 monthsc

No after 10 monthsc

Heller 2014 [22]

37

1 CS

1 CS

1 CS 8 years before

96*

18

CCC

WE, left SO, pelvic LNctomy

Mass: CCC

Ovary: negative

LFN: multiple LN positive

Refused treatment

Yes after 5 monthsa

Liu 2014 [23]

39

1 CS

1 excision of endometriosic nodule at the scar

60

6

WE, partial cystectomy, BSO, Hys, omentectomy, inguinal,pelvic, aortic LNctomy

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Ovaries, uterus, omentum: negative

Bladder: positive

Pelvic LN: 18 positive/21

Aortic LN: 6 positive /6

Inguinal LN: 8 positive/8

Carbo/PTX (3 cycles)

YES after 10 monthsc

Yes after 12 monthsc

Sosa-Duràn 2015 [24]

45

1 CS

1 CS

1 CS

6

9

WE, margins: 2 cm free

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Not done

No after 16 monthsa

No after 16 monthsa

Current case

44

1 CS 9 years before

8

22

Endometrial carcinoma

NACT (carbo/PTX)

WE, BSO, Hys, inguinal, and pelvic LNctomy

Mass: CCC + endometriosis

Ovaries, uterus: negative

Pelvic LN: 7 positive/14

Inguinal LN: 8 positive/11

Margins: free

Not done

Yes after 2 months from surgery

Yes after 6 months

CCC clear cell carcinoma, CS caesarean section, WE wide mass excision, BSO bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, SO salpingo-oophorectomy, Hys hysterectomy, LNctomy lymphadenectomy, LN lymph node, Carbo carboplatin, CIS cisplatin, PTX paclitaxel, RT radiotherapy

*The mass was reported to have come and gone over the last 8 years since the last CS

aFrom surgical resection

bFrom initial diagnosis

cSince completion of chemotherapy

dNot specified

Even though the criteria for the diagnosis of endometriosis-associated malignancies include also the coexistence of neoplastic endometrial tissue and endometriosis, almost one third of CCC arising within CS scars were not associated with endometriosis foci (Table 1). However, it has to be considered that four patients had referred cyclic pain in the CS scar during menses, or the cyclic increase/decrease of the mass volume, which could be highly suggestive of the presence of endometriosis implants [14, 17, 19, 23]. Moreover, previous history of the excision of benign endometriosis foci at the CS scar was reported in five cases [9, 11, 13, 15, 16]. Therefore, the absence of pathologically assessed endometriosis foci could be interpreted as either a sampling problem or a consequence of the complete replacement of normal tissue due to massive neoplastic proliferation. In this context, careful collection and evaluation of patient history would be important to have a high index of suspicion for endometriosis-associated malignancy.

Indeed, these masses usually reach very large dimensions (median diameter: 9 cm, range 2.5 up to 22 cm) (Table 1) before the diagnosis is made, thus highlighting the difficulties to suspect this condition and obtain an early diagnosis. This is clinically relevant since primary surgical treatment very frequently requires wide surgical excision of the mass together with partial removal of part of the abdominal muscles and reconstructive surgeries with a mesh or even pedicle-skin-muscle flap. Demolitive surgery was also necessary in the 3 cases initially triaged to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy ([13, 18] current case), since only 1 of them achieved partial response after 8 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy [18]; in addition, wide excision was necessary in the 2 cases who had undergone excision of endometriosis nodules at the CS scar in the past, and had been unsuccessfully treated with GnRh and progestins, respectively, before being triaged to radical surgery which led to definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Besides wide resection of the mass, other surgical procedures were often carried out including BSO (82.6%), as well as hysterectomy (71.4%), or endometrial biopsy (9.5%, and omentectomy or omental biopsy (30.4%), in order to exclude other primary tumors sites.

Despite the aggressiveness of surgery and the multimodal treatment approach, of 18 cases with available follow up data, 10 experienced relapse of disease, mostly at distant sites, and 8 patients died of disease.

Apart from the long time interval to diagnosis and the wide extension of disease in the abdominal wall, clinical aggressiveness is also sustained by the intrinsic biologic aggressiveness of CCC, which differs from other endometrial cancer histotypes. In this context, proper diagnosis should take advantage of immunohistochemical panels with several markers in order to exclude serous histotype as well as mesothelial tumors such as malignant mesothelioma and papillary mesothelioma which are usually positive for Calretinin, WT1, and keratin 5/6, contrary to what is observed in CCC. In addition, WT1 is the most important immunohistochemical marker to distinguish serous carcinoma from CCC.

It has to be acknowledged that of 9 cases undergoing lymphadenectomy or sampling, 8 showed diffuse metastatic involvement of inguinal, and/or pelvic, and/or aortic lymph nodes ([11, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23] current case).

On the other hand, some cases were reported to experience relatively longer disease-free and overall survival (≥30 months) [5, 6, 16, 18]; while recognizing that a more thorough molecular characterization could hopefully help define prognosis of this very rare condition, it has to be acknowledged that cases with better outcome presented with masses ranging between 4 and 9 cm, thus suggesting that a prompt recognition and treatment could make the difference.

Obviously, also prevention of endometriosis implantation at time of CS is of utmost importance: as recently emphasized, the uterus should not be exteriorized, exposure of endometrial mucosa during uterus suturing should be limited, and peritonization may be advised, although there is no definitive data about these issues [15].

Conclusions

Attention should be focused on careful evaluation of patient history in terms of pelvic surgery, and symptoms suggestive of endometriosis such as repeated occurrence of endometriosis nodules at CS scar, or cyclic pain, or volume changes of the nodules.

Abbreviations

AUC: 

Area under curve

BSO: 

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

CB: 

Carboplatin

CCC: 

Clear cell carcinoma

CIS: 

Cisplatin

CS: 

Caesarean section

FNA: 

Fine needle aspiration

HYS: 

Hysterectomy

LN: 

Lymph node

LNCTOMY: 

Lymphadenectomy

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

PET/CT: 

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography

PTX: 

Paclitaxel

RT: 

Radiotherapy

WE: 

Wide mass excision

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

No funding source to be declared.

Availability of data and materials

All data (imaging, pathology, immunohistochemistry, and procedures) are available.

Authors’ contributions

GF participated in the management of the patient and wrote the case report. EP participated in the medical management of the patient. FF was involved in the surgical management of the patient. SG carried out plastic surgery. ALV contributed to imaging characterization. MVM carried out imaging characterization. IP performed immunohistochemistry and contributed to pathological characterization. GS participated in the management of the patient and contributed to manuscript writing. GZ was in charge of immunohistochemistry and pathological diagnosis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

We have obtained consent to publish from the legal relative (husband) of the patient, since she passed away before the manuscript planning and writing.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

According to our institutional ethical committee, no specific protocol is required for retrospective collection of data.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso/Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Campobasso, Italy
(2)
Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, Rome, Italy
(3)
Department Medicine and Aging Sciences, University “G D’Annunzio”, Chieti-Pescara, Italy
(4)
Department Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Fondazione “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, Rome, Italy
(5)
Department Radiological Sciences, Institute of Radiology, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
(6)
Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Fondazione “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, Rome, Italy
(7)
Department Pathology, Catholic University, Rome, Italy

References

  1. Van Gorp T, Amant F, Neven P, Vergote I, Moerman P. Endometriosis and the development of malignant tumors of the pelvis. A review of the literature. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;18:349–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stevens EE, Pradhan TS, Chak Y, Lee YC. Malignant transformation of endometriosis in a cesarean section abdominal wall scar: a case report. J Reprod Med. 2013;58(5-6):264–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Taburiaux L, Pluchino N, Petignat P, Wenger JM. Endometriosis-associated abdominal wall cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1633–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Schnieber D, Wagner-Koib D. Malignant transformation of extragenital endometriosis. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1986;46:658–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hitti IF, Glasberg SS, Lubicz S. Clear cell carcinoma arising in extraovarian endometriosis; report of three cases and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;17:520–1.Google Scholar
  6. Miller DM, Schouls JJ, Ehelen TG. Clear cell carcinoma arising in extragonadal endometriosis in a cesarean section scar during pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol. 1998;70:127–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Park SW, Hong SM, Wu HG, Ha SW. Clear cell carcinoma arising in a cesarean section scar endometriosis: a case report. J Korean Med Sci. 1999;14(2):217–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Ishida GM, Motoyama T, Watanabe T, Emura I. Clear cell carcinoma arising in a cesarean section scar. Report of a case with fine needle aspiration cytology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(6):1095–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sergent F, Baron M, Le Cornee JB, Scotte M, Mace P, Marpeau L. Malignant transformation of abdominal wall endometriosis: a new case report. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2006;35:186–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Alberto VO, Lynch M, Labbei FN, Jeffers M. Primary abdominal wall clear cell carcinoma arising in a Caesarean section scar endometriosis. Ir J Med Sci. 2006;175(1):69–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Razzouk K, Roman H, Chanavaz-Lacheray I, Scotté M, Verspyck E, Marpeau L. Mixed clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma arising in parietal endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2007;63(3):140–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rust MM, Susa J, Naylor R, Cavuoti D. Clear cell carcinoma in a background of endometriosis. Case report of a finding in a midline abdominal scar 5 years after a total abdominal hysterectomy. Acta Cytol. 2008;52(4):475–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bats AS, Zafrani Y, Pautier P, Duvillard P, Morice P. Malignant transformation of abdominal wall endometriosis to clear cell carcinoma: case report and review of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):1197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Williams C, Petignat P, Belisle A, Drouin P. Primary abdominal wall clear cell carcinoma: case report and review of literature. Anticancer Res. 2009;29(5):1591–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourdel N, Durand M, Gimbergues P, Dauplat J, Canis M. Exclusive nodal recurrence after treatment of degenerated parietal endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(6):2074. e1-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Yan Y, Li L, Guo J, Zheng Y, Liu Q. Malignant transformation of an endometriotic lesion derived from an abdominal wall scar. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115(2):202–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Li X, Yang J, Cao D, Lang J, Chen J, Shen K. Clear-cell carcinoma of the abdominal wall after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(2 Pt 2):445–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Shalin SC, Haws AL, Carter DG, Zarrin-Khamel N. Clear cell adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis in abdominal wall cesarean section scar: a case report and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2012;39(11):1035–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mert I, Semaan A, Kim S, Ali-Fehmi R, Morris RT. Clear cell carcinoma arising in the abdominal wall: two case reports and literature review. J AJOG. 2012;207(2):e7–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ijichi S, Mori T, Suganuma I, Yamamoto T, Matsushima H, Ito F, Akiyama M, Kusuki I, Kitawaki J. Clear cell carcinoma arising from cesarean section scar endometriosis: case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014:642483.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Aust S, Tiringer D, Grimm C, Stani J, Langer M. Therapy of a clear cell adenocarcinoma of unknown primary arising in the abdominal wall after caesarean section and after hysterectomy. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2015;127(1-2):62–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller DS, Houck K, Lee ES, Granick MS. Clear cell adenocarcinoma of the abdominal wall: a case report. J Reprod Med. 2014;59(5-6):330–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu H, Leng J, Lang J, Cui Q. Clear cell carcinoma arising from abdominal wall endometriosis: a unique case with bladder and lymph node metastasis. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Sosa-Durán EE, Aboharp-Hasan Z, Mendoza-Morales RC, García-Rodríguez FM, Jiménez-Villanueva X, Peñavera-Hernández JR. Clear cell adenocarcinoma arising from abdominal wall endometriosis. Cir Cir. 2016;84(3):245–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement