title: A Case Presentation: Decidualized Endometrioma Mimicking Ovarian Cancer during Pregnancy.
abstract: During pregnancy, masses that are larger than 5 cm and appearing in the Doppler ultrasonography as having increased blood flow, echoes of heterogeneous density, and containing solid components are suspicious for malignancy; however, differential diagnosis of decidualized endometriomas should also be considered. The patient was an 8 weeks pregnant primigravida. The ultrasonographic evaluation showed a cystic mass of size 65 × 57 mm in the left ovary that was well circumscribed, heterogeneous, with highly dense internal echo, and containing a solid component of size 8 × 14 mm. In the 12th week, the ultrasonographic examination revealed an increase in the size of the mass and increased arterial blood flow in the mass. The patient underwent surgery. It was observed that both ovaries were adherent in the Douglas pouch and that the left ovary contained an endometrioma of size 8cm. While the capsule was being peeled, lesions of soft density, with irregular surfaces, and with adhesion in the Douglas pouch were observed. The results of the frozen section revealed decidualized endometrioma and decidual structures. Even in pregnant women when adnexal masses are encountered and the ultrasonography, Doppler, MRI, and CA 125 level analysis still do not favor endometriosis, decidualized endometrioma should be considered in the differential diagnosis.
authors: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, Selcuklu, Konya 42250, Turkey.
authors: Aybike
authors: A
authors: Tazegül
authors: Ozlem
authors: O
authors: Seçilmiş Kerimoğlu
authors: Feyza Nur
authors: FN
authors: Incesu
authors: Nasuh Utku
authors: NU
authors: Doğan
authors: Setenay Arzu
authors: SA
authors: Yılmaz
authors: Cetin
authors: C
authors: Celik
references: Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1818-24
references: 19363043
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Mar;188(3):685-92
references: 12634641
references: Fertil Steril. 2001 Nov;76(5):929-35
references: 11704113
references: Hum Reprod. 2006 Oct;21(10):2679-85
references: 16790608
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Jun;75(6):1023-8
references: 2188180
references: Am J Gastroenterol. 1990 Jul;85(7):841-5
references: 2196785
references: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;24(5):578-80
references: 15459936
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008 May-Jun;32(3):353-5
references: 18520536
references: Radiology. 1999 Mar;210(3):739-45
references: 10207476
references: Acta Cytol. 1981 Nov-Dec;25(6):616-22
references: 6947667
references: Am J Anat. 1978 May;152(1):7-27
references: 677047
references: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2008;66(4):241-7
references: 18645258
references: Pathol Res Pract. 1993 Apr;189(3):352-9
references: 8332577
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 1987 Jul;11(7):526-30
references: 3605488
references: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Sep;23(3):951-63
references: 7418292
references: Fertil Steril. 2006 Jul;86(1):219.e23-5
references: 16818037
references: J Surg Oncol. 1984 May;26(1):6-8
references: 6727387
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Sep;24(9):1289-94
references: 16123189
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Dec;171(6):1625-6
references: 9843300