Abstract
This an interesting case of an asymptomatic 60-year-old postmenopausal patient with an incidental pelvic mass mimicking a pelvic malignancy on imaging. Biopsy revealed findings consistent with polypoid endometriosis. After discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy, the mass showed decrease in size on follow-up imaging. Polypoid endometriosis is a rare but distinct variant of endometriosis with histopathologic features akin to an endometrial polyp. Clinical and imaging features of polypoid endometriosis differ from classic endometriosis. While classic endometriosis predominates in premenopausal women, polypoid endometriosis more commonly affects peri- to postmenopausal women and is associated with the exposure to Tamoxifen or hormone replacement therapy. Imaging features that aid in the diagnosis of polypoid endometriosis are a T2 hyperintense polypoid mass with signal characteristics similar to endometrium, a T2 hypointense peripheral rim, contrast enhancement pattern mirroring the enhancement of the endometrium, and lack of diffusion restriction. Radiologists should be familiar with polypoid endometriosis because this clinically and morphologically distinct variant may mimic malignant neoplasms on imaging.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
History
A 60-year-old postmenopausal woman was referred to a tertiary cancer center for further work-up of a pelvic mass that was discovered incidentally on pelvic ultrasound performed during a routine gynecological examination.
The patient’s past surgical history was notable for a remote supracervical hysterectomy for symptomatic leiomyomata and resection of benign breast cysts. Her past medical history was unremarkable. Of note, the patient had been on continuous hormonal replacement therapy (Premarin, conjugated estrogen) for the past 10 years. Her routine health screening examinations (i.e., mammography and Pap smear) were normal. She reported no symptoms of vaginal bleeding, discharge, hematuria, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, changes in bowel habits or weight loss.
A bimanual pelvic examination revealed an anteriorly displaced cervical remnant and a palpable pelvic mass in the cul-de-sac posterior to the cervical remnant. A digital rectal examination revealed a firm mass abutting the anterior and lateral rectal walls; the mass was situated approximately 6 cm superior to the anal verge. Laboratory work-up and tumor markers including CA-125 were all within normal limits. Further work-up included MRI of pelvis and flexible proctosigmoidoscopy (see selected images).
Imaging findings
Axial T2-weighted image from MRI of pelvis showed a lobulated heterogeneous high-T2 signal intensity mass that was centered in the cul-de-sac. It was inseparable from the cervical remnant anteriorly and anterior wall of the rectum posteriorly, and possibly involving the rectum (Fig. 1).
Coronal T2-weighted image depicted the craniocaudal extent of the mass and demonstrated a low T2 signal intensity rim along its periphery (Fig. 2). The mass was relatively hyperintense on both high b-value axial DWI (Fig. 3) and the corresponding ADC map (Fig. 4). The mean ADC value was 1.4 × 10−3 mm2/s, indicating absent restricted diffusion. The subtraction image from post-contrast axial fat-suppressed T1-weighted imaging (Fig. 5) showed mild heterogeneous enhancement within the mass.
Flexible proctosigmoidoscopy showed a round mass indenting the rectum. The rectal mucosa appeared relatively normal, indicating that the mass was unlikely to be of primary rectal origin (Fig. 6).
On a Fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) PET/CT performed for further work-up, the mass demonstrated mild FDG avidity (maximal standard uptake value (SUVmax) of 3.3, liver background mean SUV 2.1) (Fig. 7).
Discussion
An asymptomatic 60-year-old postmenopausal patient presented with a polypoid pelvic mass that was discovered incidentally at the time of pelvic ultrasound. The mass was centered in the cul-de-sac abutting the cervix anteriorly and rectum posteriorly. It did not clearly originate from either of these organs. The primary diagnostic considerations were malignancy arising from the cervical remnant, endometriosis-associated malignancy (e.g., endometrioid or clear cell carcinoma) or rectal tumor (e.g., mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma or gastrointestinal stroma tumor).
The polypoid mass demonstrated the following key imaging findings: high-signal intensity on T2-weighted images, a peripheral low T2 signal intensity rim, lack of diffusion restriction and mild enhancement following intravenous contrast administration. Ascites, peritoneal implants and lymphadenopathy were notably absent. The mass showed mildly increased FDG uptake on FDG-PET/CT.
After the initial inconclusive biopsy during colonoscopy, the mass was biopsied transvaginally, and the histopathology was notable for polypoid fragments of endometrioid glands with squamous metaplasia in a background of endometrial stroma, consistent with polypoid endometriosis (Figs. 8 and 9). The stroma demonstrated positive immunoreactivity for CD10, a known marker of normal endometrial stroma [1].
Given the benign findings at biopsy and the risk of complications that may result from pelvic surgery, the patient and her care team opted for the discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy and active surveillance with imaging. Three months after hormone replacement therapy was stopped, the follow-up MRI showed mild decrease in the size of the pelvic mass (Fig. 10).
Polypoid endometriosis is an uncommon distinct variant of endometriosis. The term was first proposed by Mostoufizadeh and Scully in 1980 [2]. The authors described “ectopic endometriotic tissue with histology features similar to those of endometrial polyp”. They suggested that polypoid endometriosis presents as “large, often multiple, polypoid masses stimulating malignant tumors” and resembles endometrial polyp at histopathology.
The literature on polypoid endometriosis is limited to small case series and case reports, with most publications focusing on histopathologic rather than imaging features. In one of the largest case series to date, Parker et al. reported on 24 patients with polypoid endometriosis and described the key clinical and histopathologic features that help to distinguish the polypoid variant from classic form of endometriosis [3]. The authors noticed that patients with polypoid endometriosis were older (typically peri- or postmenopausal in age) compared with patients with classic endometriosis which usually presents before menopause. Furthermore, nearly 50% of the patients with polypoid endometriosis were on hormonal treatment (either unopposed estrogen or mixed estrogen–progestin therapy) at the time of diagnosis. The ovaries, colon and its mesentery, uterine serosa and vaginal mucosa were among the most common locations affected by polypoid endometriosis. In contrast, the cervix, fallopian tubes, ureters and bladder serosa were among the less commonly involved sites. On histopathology, the lesions appeared as benign endometriotic glands (with variable degrees of atypical features) embedded in a benign endometrial stroma “resembling that of an inactive or proliferative endometrium” [3].
In this present case, an important clue to the correct diagnosis is provided by patient’s history, i.e., the information about hormone replacement therapy with a conjugated estrogen. Similar to classic endometriosis, the polypoid variant relates to estrogenic stimulation, e.g., hormone replacement therapy or Tamoxifen use [4,5,6,7,8]. Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM). It is widely used in the adjuvant setting in women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer because it has been shown to reduce recurrence risk and mortality [9, 10]. While the primary therapeutic effect of Tamoxifen is derived from its antiestrogenic effects in the breast tissue, it acts as a moderate estrogen agonist on the endometrium and bone [11, 12]. Tamoxifen-induced endometrial changes may range from cystic endometrial atrophy, endometrial hyperplasia and polyps to endometrial carcinoma [13].
In addition to the abovementioned clinical clue, several imaging features may also help to narrow the differential diagnosis. First, the polypoid mass was relatively T2-hyperintense and had a characteristic T2-hypointense peripheral rim, a feature that has been described in the literature and is thought to represent a rim of fibrotic tissue [14,15,16]. Furthermore, the mass had relatively high-signal intensity on both high b-value DWI and ADC map, indicating the absence of high cellularity. Lack of diffusion restriction in polypoid endometriosis was described previously by several case reports [15,16,17,18,19]. While not applicable in this case due to supracervical hysterectomy, an additional imaging feature that may suggest the correct diagnosis is the similarity in T2-signal characteristics and the pattern of contrast enhancement between polypoid endometriosis and the endometrium [15, 16].
Imaging findings on FDG-PET/CT were non-specific. The mass showed very mild FDG uptake, which was slightly higher than the reference background liver uptake. The radiotracer uptake on FDG-PET/CT is not diagnostic of malignancy and may also be seen at sites of infection or inflammation as a result of increased glycolytic activity of inflammatory cells. Furthermore, several prior reports noted that increased FDG uptake may be observed in classic endometriosis, with SUV values ranging from 3.52 to 5.44 [20,21,22]. The FDG uptake in endometriosis is thought to be related to inflammation [23].
Concurrent classic endometriosis was absent in our patient, but two forms of endometriosis often co-exist in the same patient. Hence, it is useful to review patient’s clinical history for prior diagnosis of endometriosis and to evaluate MR images for imaging stigmata of endometriosis. Imaging findings of endometriosis may include endometrioma(s), “T1 bright spots” (that are best seen on fat-saturated T1-weighted images and correspond to hemorrhagic endometriotic deposits), and fibrotic changes/scarring in typical locations such as the cul-de-sac, vesicouterine pouch, rectovaginal septum, and uterosacral ligaments.
Beyond the above considerations, there were several aspects of the patient’s clinical history and laboratory data that helped to narrow the diagnosis. Our patient was completely asymptomatic. While this observation does not exclude malignancy, it is remarkable given the location of the mass and, taken together with imaging findings, may raise the possibility of a benign etiology. Furthermore, all tested serum tumor markers were within normal limits [15, 16, 24, 25]. Based on the location of the mass, differential possibilities included mucinous rectal carcinoma and rectal gastrointestinal stroma tumor (GIST). Although the signal characteristics (T2 and DWI/ADC hyperintensity), relatively low level of enhancement and minimal uptake on FDG PET/CT are frequent with mucinous rectal carcinoma, the finding of intact mucosa at flexible proctosigmoidoscopy ruled this entity out as a possibility [26, 27]. Rectal GIST arises from the non-epithelial mesenchymal component of the bowel wall and can present with intact mucosa. The eccentric location and T2 signal characteristics of the mass would be consistent with rectal GIST. When large, GISTs are commonly more heterogeneous in appearance as a result of cystic, necrotic and hemorrhagic changes [28]. Furthermore, GISTs are more commonly round to ovoid in shape and most patients are symptomatic if the tumor has reached a size similar to that observed in our patient [29]. Lastly, endometriosis-associated malignancy (EAM) can arise from ovarian and extraovarian endometriotic deposits, although the latter is less common. Interestingly, Modesitt et al. [30] reported on 115 patients with EAM and found that extraovarian EAM was more common in postmenopausal women and in women receiving hormone replacement therapy, as was the case in our patient. However, unlike our patient, extraovarian EAM is often encountered in patients with known endometriosis and may occur at unusual postsurgical sites [31]. On imaging, extraovarian EAM displays heterogeneous T1 and T2 signal characteristics with areas of hemorrhage and demonstrates restricted diffusion, both of which were absent in our patient [31].
While polypoid endometriosis is rare, this entity is important to recognize because it is a benign mimic of malignancy. Oncologic imagers should be familiar with polypoid endometriosis and consider this rare entity in peri- or postmenopausal women being treated with Tamoxifen, a drug that is currently widely used in patients with breast cancer.
The definitive diagnosis of polypoid endometriosis requires histopathology. Nevertheless, there are several imaging features that can aid in narrowing the differential possibilities. These are:
T2 signal characteristics and contrast enhancement pattern of the mass that mirror those of the endometrium.
Peripheral T2 hypointense rim surrounding the masses.
Lack of diffusion restriction.
Lack of ancillary features suggestive of malignancy (e.g., lymphadenopathy and peritoneal implants).
± Presence of imaging stigmata of endometriosis.
In summary, polypoid endometriosis is a rare distinct mass-like variant of endometriosis that mimics malignancy and poses a diagnostic challenge both clinically and radiologically. Common locations include the ovaries, uterine serosa, vagina, large bowel, and, occasionally, the cervix. Knowledge of several important clinical and imaging features including older age (peri- or postmenopausal age group), association with hormonal treatment, MR signal characteristics mirroring endometrium, T2 hypointense peripheral rim and high signal on DWI/ADC may help in narrowing the differential diagnosis.
References
Sumathi VP, McCluggage WG (2002) CD10 is useful in demonstrating endometrial stroma at ectopic sites and in confirming a diagnosis of endometriosis. Journal of clinical pathology 55 (5):391-392
Mostoufizadeh M, Scully RE (1980) Malignant tumors arising in endometriosis. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology 23 (3):951-963
Parker RL, Dadmanesh F, Young RH, Clement PB (2004) Polypoid endometriosis: a clinicopathologic analysis of 24 cases and a review of the literature. The American journal of surgical pathology 28 (3):285-297
Choi IH, Jin SY, Jeen YM, Lee JJ, Kim DW (2015) Tamoxifen-associated polypoid endometriosis mimicking an ovarian neoplasm. Obstetrics & gynecology science 58 (4):327-330. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2015.58.4.327
Kraft JK, Hughes T (2006) Polypoid endometriosis and other benign gynaecological complications associated with Tamoxifen therapy-a case to illustrate features on magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical radiology 61 (2):198-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.09.007
Chang CK, Chen P, Leu FJ, Lou SM (2003) Florid polypoid endometriosis exacerbated by tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer. Obstet Gynecol 102 (5 Pt 2):1127-1130
Schlesinger C, Silverberg SG (1999) Tamoxifen-associated polyps (basalomas) arising in multiple endometriotic foci: A case report and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 73 (2):305-311. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1998.5305
Yamamoto A, Usami T, Kondo E, Kato K, Motoyama TJICCJ (2016) Huge polypoid endometriosis: report of a case and review of the literature. 5 (1):31-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13691-015-0220-z
Lee ES, Han W, Kim MK, Kim J, Yoo TK, Lee MH, Lee KH, Kim TY, Moon HG, Im SA, Noh DY, Lee ES (2016) Factors associated with late recurrence after completion of 5-year adjuvant tamoxifen in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. BMC cancer 16:430. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2423-x
Ferno M, Baldetorp B, Bendahl PO, Borg A, Ewers SB, Olsson H, Ryden S, Sigurdsson H, Killander D (1995) Recurrence-free survival in breast cancer improved by adjuvant tamoxifen–especially for progesterone receptor positive tumors with a high proliferation. Breast cancer research and treatment 36 (1):23-34
Powles TJ, Hickish T, Kanis JA, Tidy A, Ashley S (1996) Effect of tamoxifen on bone mineral density measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in healthy premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 14 (1):78-84. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.1.78
Gielen SC, Santegoets LA, Hanifi-Moghaddam P, Burger CW, Blok LJ (2008) Signaling by estrogens and tamoxifen in the human endometrium. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology 109 (3-5):219-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2008.03.021
Hann LE, Giess CS, Bach AM, Tao Y, Baum HJ, Barakat RR (1997) Endometrial thickness in tamoxifen-treated patients: correlation with clinical and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168 (3):657-661. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.3.9057510
Ozaki K, Gabata T, Tanaka M, Matsui O, Suzuki M, Kawashima H, Minami M, Zen Y (2008) Polypoid endometriosis: An uncommon and distinctive variant of endometriosis. European Journal of Radiology Extra 65 (3):97-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrex.2008.01.004
Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Furumoto H, Nishitani H (2008) Case report: A case of polypoid endometriosis: MR pathological correlation. The British journal of radiology 81 (964):e118-119. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/23847518
Kozawa E, Inoue K, Iwasa N, Fujiwara K, Yasuda M, Tanaka J, Kimura F (2012) MR imaging of polypoid endometriosis of the ovary. Magn Reson Med Sci 11 (3):201-204
Lee NK KB, Choi KU, Song YJ, Suh DS, Kim KH (2018) Polypoid endometriosis of the ovary mimicking advanced ovarian carcinoma with extensive peritoneal metastases. Int J Clin Exp Med (11):4279-4284
Tham WP, Busmanis I, Tan WC, Kwek JW (2016) Polypoid endometriosis of post vaginal fornix: utility of MRI imaging of pelvis with diffusion weighted imaging for diagnosis. The Medical journal of Malaysia 71 (3):144-146
Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Bando Y, Nishimura M, Yoneda A, Harada M (2016) A case of polypoid endometriosis with malignant transformation. Abdominal radiology (New York) 41 (9):1699-1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0696-9
Jeffry L, Kerrou K, Camatte S, Metzger U, Lelievre L, Talbot JN, Lecuru F (2004) Endometriosis with FDG uptake on PET. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 117 (2):236-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.04.034
Ge J, Zuo C, Guan Y, Zhang X (2015) Increased 18F-FDG uptake of widespread endometriosis mimicking ovarian malignancy. Clinical nuclear medicine 40 (2):186-188. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000657
Setubal A, Maia S, Lowenthal C, Sidiropoulou Z (2011) FDG-PET value in deep endometriosis. Gynecological Surgery 8 (3):305-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-010-0652-6
Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA (2007) The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer–a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 105 (1):145-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.11.022
Kim JY, Song TJ, Choi HK, Shim JY (2015) Multifocal Polypoid Endometriosis Mimicking Malignancy in a Young Woman with a History of Hormonal Treatment. J Pathol Transl Med 49 (5):418-420. https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2015.05.12
Moss EL, Hollingworth J, Reynolds TM (2005) The role of CA125 in clinical practice. Journal of clinical pathology 58 (3):308-312. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2004.018077
Jhaveri KS, Hosseini-Nik H (2015) MRI of Rectal Cancer: An Overview and Update on Recent Advances. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205 (1):W42-55. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.14201
Berger KL, Nicholson SA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA (2000) FDG PET evaluation of mucinous neoplasms: correlation of FDG uptake with histopathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174 (4):1005-1008. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.4.1741005
Jiang ZX, Zhang SJ, Peng WJ, Yu BH (2013) Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: imaging features with clinical and pathological correlation. World J Gastroenterol 19 (20):3108-3116. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i20.3108
Scola D, Bahoura L, Copelan A, Shirkhoda A, Sokhandon F (2017) Getting the GIST: a pictorial review of the various patterns of presentation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors on imaging. Abdominal radiology (New York) 42 (5):1350-1364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1025-z
Modesitt SC, Tortolero-Luna G, Robinson JB, Gershenson DM, Wolf JK (2002) Ovarian and extraovarian endometriosis-associated cancer. Obstet Gynecol 100 (4):788-795
McDermott S, Oei TN, Iyer VR, Lee SI (2012) MR Imaging of Malignancies Arising in Endometriomas and Extraovarian Endometriosis. RadioGraphics 32 (3):845-863. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.323115736
Acknowledgements
We thank Joanne Chin for her editorial support of this manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ghafoor, S., Lakhman, Y., Park, K.J. et al. Polypoid endometriosis: a mimic of malignancy. Abdom Radiol 45, 1776–1782 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02143-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02143-8