DOI 10.1016/j.jpag.2015.02.114
Literature Review of Benign Müllerian Papilloma Contrasted With Vaginal Rhabdomyosarcoma.
Аннотация
STUDY
OBJECTIVES
Benign müllerian papillomas of the genital tract are rare and, hence, can be mistaken for vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma on initial clinical review. This review of the literature will consolidate the previous cases of müllerian papilloma reported and looks for clues to differentiate the 2 entities.
DESIGN AND
SETTING
We provide a case report and literature review, with patients from a pediatric adolescent gynecology clinic in a tertiary center.
METHODS
We conducted a search of English-language publications from 1951 (the first case report) until January 2014 by using the search words "Müllerian papilloma" and "prepubertal bleeding." References from previous published reports were also obtained for completeness.
MAIN OUTCOME: Literature review of benign müllerian papilloma.
RESULTS
Since 1951, 56 cases of müllerian papilloma were reported, including 4 cases at our institution. Comorbid conditions were found in 31.5% of cases (with 3 cases associated with mesenchymal tumors). The average length of time from onset of symptoms (primarily vaginal bleeding) to diagnosis was 6.7 months (range, 1 day to 3 years), with only 1 case diagnosed incidentally. Median age of presentation was 5 years (range, 1 day to 52 years). Most cases were localized and resected with ease. Histology reveals complex papillary lesions without cytologic atypia.
CONCLUSION
Benign müllerian papilloma is distinguished from the more significant diagnosis of vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma by initial length of vaginal bleeding at presentation, lack of vaginal wall extension, ease of resection, and histopathology. This is compared with vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma which commonly exhibits both localized and distant spread.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.