Diagnostic difficulties in the differentiation between an ovarian metastatic low­grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm and primary ovarian mucinous cancer: A case report and literature review.

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is a tumor that primarily originates from the appendix and belongs to the family of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (AMNs). In 50% of female patients, AMNs (particularly LAMNs) have a tendency to metastasize to organs in the genital tract, where the neoplasm can mimic the features of primary ovarian mucinous cancer (POMC). The present case report reviewed the difficulties in differentiating between these two types of tumors. In the present case report, a 61-year-old female patient was admitted to the Second Department of Gynecological Surgery and Gynecological Oncology, University Clinical Hospital no. 4 at Lublin Medical University (Lublin, Poland) with the diagnosis of a right ovarian mass. After performing ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) scans and laboratory analysis, the patient underwent total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, appendectomy and resection of the Douglas peritoneum. Notably, the postoperative pathological assessment revealed LAMN with metastases to the right ovary and omentum. Immunohistochemically, cytokeratin 20 and caudal type homeobox 2 both stained positively, whereas paired box gene 8 stained negatively. After surgery, the patient received the recommended hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at the Department of Surgical Oncology at Lublin Medical University. After 1 year, a CT scan was performed, which indicated no evidence of recurrent disease. In conclusion, observations from the present case report suggest that gynecologists should be conscious of the possibility of malignancies of gastrointestinal origin in cases of ovarian tumors instead of making direct assumptions of POMC. If the mucinous mass involves the base of the appendix or if there is a suspicion of positive margins, then cytoreductive surgery and right-sided hemicolectomy must be performed. In addition, identifying the origin of mucinous tumors in the right ovary and/or the appendix requires the histopathological examination of a panel of markers using immunohistochemistry.

HPV16 E6 Gene Transcripts in Primary Type II Endometrial Carcinomas.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Data on the prevalence of human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA in different subtypes of endometrial carcinomas (EC) are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated the incidence of HPV16 DNA E6/E7 transcripts in 47 type I (endometrioid-type) tumors and eight type II (non-endometrioid-type) uterine neoplasms applying PCR-based technology. Immunohistochemical staining in HPV16 positive cases was also performed, and seven lymph node metastases were examined for the presence of HPV16 DNA E6/E7. RESULTS: None of the type I ECs was positive for HPV16 E6 gene transcripts; however, four out of 8 (50%) type II ECs (two out of four papillary-serous and two out of four clear-cell carcinomas) were positive for HPV16 E6 transcripts. The difference in HPV16 E6 transcripts between endometrioid and non-endometrioid neoplasms was statistically significant (p=0.0011). Apart from the cancer subtype, none of the EC clinicopathological features were related to HPV16 E6 positivity. None of 55 ECs contained an HPV16 E7 gene transcripts. All slides from gene-positive samples revealed intense immunostaining reactions. Interestingly, the virus was not detected in any of seven lymph node metastases, including four from HPV16-positive primary tumors. CONCLUSION: HPV16 E6 gene transcripts may be present in ECs, primarily in the non-endometrioid (type II) uterine cancer subtypes. HPV E6/E7 DNA transcripts were not found in lymph node metastases, even when the primary tumors harboured HPV DNA.