Ectopic gestational trophoblastic disease: a case series review.

OBJECTIVE: To highlight the clinical presentation, treatment, histological review and outcome of patients referred to the Sheffield Centre with possible ectopic gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case note review of patients with possible ectopic GTD referred to the Sheffield Centre between 1997 and 2010 was performed. RESULTS: During the 13 years of this retrospective study 6,708 patients were registered at the Centre with GTD, of whom 42 had possible ectopic GTD. Most patients presented with abdominal pain and/or vaginal bleeding (67%). Ectopic pregnancy was diagnosed by ultrasound scan in 19%. Laparoscopic removal of ectopic pregnancy was carried out in 50% of cases; the rest underwent laparotomy for removal of ectopic conceptus. Histological review of slides was performed in 19 cases for whom there was clinical concern. This resulted in 12 confirmed cases of ectopic GTD: 4 choriocarcinomas, 5 partial moles and 3 complete moles. No evidence of metastasis was recorded in any of the cases. Three patients diagnosed with ectopic choriocarcinoma needed chemotherapy. Two responded to methotrexate and 1 needed second-line chemotherapy. All patients are alive and free of disease. CONCLUSION: Ectopic GTD is rare and still overdiagnosed. Presentation is the same as for conventional ectopic pregnancy. Central review of the histology should be undertaken, especially in cases where there is clinical, hCG level or histopathologic concern. Conventional chemotherapy for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia is effective. Prognosis remains excellent.

Juvenile granulosa cell tumour of the ovary presenting with hyperprolactinaemic amenorrhoea and galactorrhoea.

UNLABELLED: Secondary amenorrhoea and galactorrhoea represent a common endocrine presentation. We report a case of an oestrogen-producing juvenile granulosa cell tumour (JGCT) of the ovary in a 16-year-old post-pubertal woman with hyperprolactinaemia amenorrhoea and galactorrhoea which resolved following surgical resection of the tumour. This patient presented with a 9-month history of secondary amenorrhoea and a 2-month history of galactorrhoea. Elevated serum prolactin at 7081 mIU/l and suppressed gonadotropins (LH <0.1 U/l; FSH <0.1 U/l) were detected. Serum oestradiol was significantly elevated at 7442 pmol/l with undetectable ß-human chorionic gonadotropin. MRI showed a bulky pituitary with no visible adenoma. MRI of the abdomen showed a 4.8 cm mass arising from the right ovary with no evidence of metastatic disease. Serum inhibin B was elevated at 2735 ng/l. A right salpingo-oophorectomy was performed, and histology confirmed the diagnosis of a JGCT, stage International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1A. Immunohistochemical staining for prolactin was negative. Post-operatively, oestrogen and prolactin levels were normalised, and she subsequently had a successful pregnancy. In summary, we present a case of an oestrogen-secreting JGCT with hyperprolactinaemia manifesting clinically with galactorrhoea and secondary amenorrhoea. We postulate that observed hyperprolactinaemia was caused by oestrogenic stimulation of pituitary lactotroph cells, a biochemical state analogous to pregnancy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of hyperprolactinaemia as a result of excessive oestrogen production in the context of a JGCT. LEARNING POINTS: Hyperprolactinaemia with bilateral galactorrhoea and secondary amenorrhoea has a wide differential diagnosis and is not always caused by a prolactin secreting pituitary adenoma.Significantly elevated serum oestradiol levels in the range seen in this case, in the absence of pregnancy, are indicative of an oestrogen-secreting tumour.JGCTs are rare hormonally active ovarian neoplasms mostly secreting steroid hormones.Serum inhibin can be used as a granulosa cell-specific tumour marker.JGCTs have an excellent prognosis in the early stages of the disease.

Providing a quality service: direct referral from the cytology laboratory to the colposcopy clinic.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the time taken for the referral process and the accuracy of referrals before and after a process review and the introduction of a system of direct referral from the cytology laboratory to the colposcopy clinic. SETTING: The colposcopy service in a large teaching hospital in Teesside. METHODS: Data on time points within the referral process and smear histories were collected. Data on time points were obtained retrospectively from the case-notes from before the new system of referral ('pre' group) and from an electronic database after the changes ('post' group). Smear histories were retrieved from the cytology database. RESULTS: The overall time that patients waited from the time the smear was taken until the time they were seen in the colposcopy clinic was significantly reduced. The median time between smear and colposcopy decreased from 92.5 days (range 35-254 days) in the 'pre' group to 33 days (range 13-43 days) in the 'post' group (P=0.0001). The median time taken from the smear report being issued until the report arrived in the colposcopy clinic was 14 days (range 4-123 days) in the 'pre' group, compared with two days (range 0-17 days) in the 'post' group (P=0.0001). There was a significant reduction in the number of inaccurate referrals in the 'post' group compared with the 'pre' group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Direct referral significantly reduces the time patients wait for colposcopy appointments and improves the accuracy of referrals.