title: Umbilical metastases: current viewpoint.
abstract: BACKGROUND: Umbilical metastases from a malignant neoplasm, also termed Sister Mary Joseph's nodule, are not commonly reported in the English literature, and they have usually been considered as a sign of a poor prognosis for the patient. The present article reports on the current view point on umbilical metastasis besides discussing the epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology and treatment. METHOD: A search of Pubmed was carried out using the term 'umblic*' and 'metastases' or metastasis' revealed no references. Another search was made using the term "Sister Joseph's nodule" or sister Joseph nodule" that revealed 99 references. Of these there were 14 review articles, however when the search was limited to English language it yielded only 20 articles. Articles selected from these form the basis of this report along with cross references. RESULTS: The primary lesions usually arise from gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract malignancies and may be the presenting symptom or sign of a primary tumour in an unknown site. CONCLUSION: A careful evaluation of all umbilical lesions, including an early biopsy if appropriate, is recommended. Recent studies suggest an aggressive surgical approach combined with chemotherapy for such patients may improve survival.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, "P,Valdoni" – University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy. raimondo.gabriele@uniroma1.it.
authors.forename: Raimondo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Gabriele
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Conte
authors.forename: Federico
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Egidi
authors.forename: Mario
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Borghese
references.citation: World J Surg Oncol. 2005 Jan 14;3(1):4
references.pmid: 15651984
references.citation: J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1996;25(8):799-803
references.pmid: 9026507
references.citation: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998 Sep-Oct;22(5):756-7
references.pmid: 9754112
references.citation: J Surg Oncol. 1979;12(1):41-5
references.pmid: 225606
references.citation: Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2000 Aug-Sep;127(8-9):732-4
references.pmid: 11011165
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1987 May 21;316(21):1348-9
references.pmid: 3574410
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Feb;40(2):152-9
references.pmid: 2010106
references.citation: Am Surg. 1996 Apr;62(4):328-9
references.pmid: 8600859
references.citation: Dis Colon Rectum. 2004 Jan;47(1):115-7
references.pmid: 14719158
references.citation: J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990 Jan;22(1):19-26
references.pmid: 2298962
references.citation: Hautarzt. 2004 Feb;55(2):186-9
references.pmid: 14968331
references.citation: Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2000 Oct;28(10):719-21
references.pmid: 11244633
references.citation: Radiol Med. 1999 Jul-Aug;98(1-2):94-6
references.pmid: 10566304
references.citation: Cancer. 1965 Jul;18:907-15
references.pmid: 14308240
references.citation: Abdom Imaging. 2002 Nov-Dec;27(6):746-9
references.pmid: 12395268
references.citation: J Chronic Dis. 1966 Oct;19(10):1113-7
references.pmid: 5966767
references.citation: J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1988 Jun;14(6):664-7
references.pmid: 3372849
references.citation: Cutis. 1997 Dec;60(6):297-8
references.pmid: 9426970
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1998 Mar 1;128(5):410
references.pmid: 9490607