eISSN: 2299-0038
ISSN: 1643-8876
Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special Issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures

SCImago Journal & Country Rank
 
6/2010
vol. 9
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
Case report

Pseudomyxoma peritonei and mucocele of vermiform appendix simulating right adnexal mass

Miłosz Wilczyński
,
Marian Szpakowski
,
Jarosław Laskowski
,
Tomasz Krawczyk
,
Andrzej Krawczyk
,
Jacek Radosław Wilczyński

Przegląd Menopauzalny 2010; 6: 419–421
Online publish date: 2010/12/27
Article file
- Pseudomyxoma.pdf  [0.15 MB]
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
 

Introduction



Mucocele is a dilatation of a vermiform appendix caused by its obstruction and consequent accumulation of mucus in the lumen. This condition is found in 0.2-0.3% of all appendectomies [1]. It is more frequent in females and patients over 50 years of age [2]. Obliteration of appendiceal lumen can be a result of mucinous cystadenoma (63%), mucosal hyperplasia (25%), mucinous cystadenocarcinoma and retention cysts (11%) [3]. There have been reported several cases of mucocele secondary to diverticula, fecaliths, endometriosis and carcinoids [4-6]. Due to unspecific symptoms and localization in the lower abdominal quadrant, mucocele may mimic right adnexal mass [7] making the preoperative diagnosis very difficult.

Spontaneous perforation of a distended appendix or accidental rupture of its wall at the time of surgery may result in forming a condition known as pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). Epithelial cells originating from primary neoplasm proliferate and spread throughout the peritoneal cavity. The development of PMP manifests in accumulation of mucinous deposits in the abdomen which can be associated with peritoneal and omental implants. Ronnet et al. classified PMP into two categories: disseminated peritoneal mucinosis (DPAM) with epithelial cells presenting small atypia or mitotic activity and peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis (PMC) characterized by epithelium with cytological features of carcinoma [8]. The estimated incidence of this disease is 1 to 2 per million per year [9].

Case report



A 51-year-old woman was admitted to our ward with episodes of right lower abdominal pain. Physical examination revealed a palpable pelvic mass on the same side. Ultrasound examination showed the presence of hypoechogenic area on the right side behind the uterus

(34 × 24 mm) and irregular, partially fluid mass in the region of right adnexa (60 × 48 mm) (Fig. 1). There was also a suspicion of endometrial hyperplasia. The CA-125 tumor marker level was not elevated. Other biochemical studies as well as complete blood count were also normal.

In such circumstances diagnostic laparoscopy seemed to be the right decision. The surgery revealed presence of mucinous masses localized in the right pelvic region and dilated, perforated appendix covered by mucus. During laparoscopy appendectomy, total cytoreduction of mucinous lesions and irrigation of peritoneal cavity were performed. The surgeon also decided to resect ovaries with fallopian tubes in order to exclude the probable presence of malignancy involving their structure. All these specimens were sent for histological examination that showed a benign mucinous adenoma of the appendix and pseudomyxoma peritonei (Fig. 2, Fig. 3). Adnexa were not pathologically changed. Uterine curettage did not confirm the suspicion of endometrial hyperplasia. After the management, the patient recovered and was informed about the necessity of future follow-up.

Discussion



The diagnosis of appendiceal mucocele is a challenging problem for gynecologists. This condition is asymptomatic in about 25% of patients and can be identified incidentally during radiological examination. Common clinical manifestations of the disease include right lower abdominal pain and palpable mass, whereas rare presentations of mucocele are intestinal obstruction or intestinal bleeding [10]. In some cases there is also an occurrence of increased levels of serum tumor markers. Dragoumis et al. described an instance of mucocele simulating right adnexal mass with elevated CA125 serum levels [11]. Ultrasound evaluation is not always helpful in ascertaining the final diagnosis due to the fact that image may be quite miscellaneous (cystic lesions with anechoic fluid or with hypo/hyperechoic masses dependent on mucus density). Only the “onion skin” sign is believed to be the most distinctive finding for appendiceal mucocele [12]. Taking into consideration all the facts mentioned above and anatomic localization of appendix, it turns out that mucocele can be easily misdiagnosed. Balci et al. recently have reported a case of mucocele mimicking right adnexal cyst [13]. Their preoperative diagnosis was wrong and only laparotomy allowed to finally identify pathological masses. It was a similar situation to our case.

The most unwanted and problematic complication of mucocele is rupture of its wall and spillage of mucus within the peritoneal cavity. Perforation of distended appendix occurs usually spontaneously due to rising intraluminal pressure. This could be the beginning of a process leading to development of an advanced stage of PMP. In early stage of the disease the surgeon can find small deposits of free mucus in the peritoneal cavity and on surface of the appendix [14]. Over time mucus is redistributed in a specific way which is dependent on gravity and intraperitoneal fluid current. Epithelial cells continue to proliferate and form tumor implants especially on omental and diaphragmatic surface which leads consequently to mucinous ascites [15].

The origin of PMP has been a controversial issue for many years. It is believed that the most probable primary sites are ovaries and vermiform appendix. However, new evidence was discovered suggesting that the involvement of ovaries seems to be secondary to a primary origin in the appendix. Study performed by Ronnet et al. showed that samples collected from ovarian mucinous deposits in course of PMP were positive for cytokeratin 7, 18 , 20, human alveolar macrophage 56 and carcinoembryonic antigen [16]. These characteristics were also found in appendiceal lesions, whereas primary ovarian neoplasms without PMP were immunohistochemically different.

Clinical manifestation of the disease is quite variable and not specific. Patients with an advanced stage of PMP present with distended abdomen by mucinous ascites (so called “jelly belly”) and intestinal obstruction [14]. In less advanced stages females are admitted to hospitals with lower abdominal pain, pelvic or ovarian masses, infertility and menstruation disturbances [17]. The most helpful tools for the diagnosis of the disease are ultrasound imaging and computer tomography which can visualize mucinous deposits in different abdominal regions. Serum tumour markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen or CA-19-9 can be useful fixtures related with PMP. The sensitivity of CA125 is approximately 60%, however, its levels may be also elevated in primary ovarian lesions [18]. It makes the differential diagnosis between adnexal masses and PMP caused by ruptured mucocele even more difficult.

The management of this condition depends on the stage of the disease. In more advanced PMP Sugarbaker suggests cytoreductive surgery consisting of parietal peritonectomy, debulking procedures and resection of all involved organs. This treatment should be followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) [14]. In the early stage of PMP there are no standard procedures. It is believed that appendectomy and total reduction of mucinous deposits is a sufficient treatment [14]. Our patient was treated this way as there were no signs of more advanced disease. After surgical management a close follow-up consisting of serum tumour markers control, computed tomography scan and physical examination are obligatory [14].

References



 1. Dhage-Ivatury S, Sugarbaker PH. Update on the surgical approach to mucocele of the appendix. J Am Coll Surg 2006: 202; 680-4.

 2. Aho AJ, Heinonen R, Laurén P. Benign and malignant mucocele of the appendix. Histological types and prognosis. Acta Chir Scand 1973; 139: 392-400.

 3. Higa E, Rosai J, Pizzimbono CA, et al. Mucosal hyperplasia, mucinous cystadenoma, and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the appendix. A re-evaluation of appendiceal “mucocele”. Cancer 1973; 32: 1525-41.

 4. Rakovich G, Larue N. Mucocele of the appendix associated with a carcinoid of the terminal ileum. Can J Surg 2007; 50: 66-7.

 5. Driman DK, Melega DE, Vilos GA, et al. Mucocele of the appendix secondary to endometriosis. Report of two cases, one with localized pseudomyxoma peritonei. Am J Clin Pathol 2000; 113: 860-4.

 6. Sobstyl M, Bednarek W, Czekierdowski A i wsp. Współistnienie śluzaka rzekomego otrzewnej, gruczolako-torbielaka śluzowego wyrostka robaczkowego oraz ziarniszczaka jajnika u 54-letniej kobiety. Opis przypadku. Prz Menopauz 2009; 4: 184-6.

 7. Balci O, Ozdemir S, Mahmoud AS. Appendiceal mucocele mimicking a cystic right adnexal mass. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 48: 412-4.

 8. Ronnett BM, Zahn CM, Kurman RJ, et al. Disseminated peritoneal ade-nomucinosis and peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis. A clinicopathologic analysis of 109 cases with emphasis on distinguishing pathologic features, site of origin, prognosis, and relationship to “pseudomyxoma peritonei”. Am J Surg Pathol 1995; 19: 1390-408.

 9. Mukherjee A, Parvaiz A, Cecil TD, et al. Pseudomyxoma peritonei usually originates from the appendix: a review of the evidence. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2004; 25: 411-4.

10. Rampone B, Roviello F, Marrelli D, et al. Giant appendiceal mucocele: report of a case and brief review. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 4761-3.

11. Dragoumis K, Mikos T, Zafrakas M, et al. Mucocele of the vermiform appendix with sonographic appearance of an adnexal mass. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005; 59: 162-4.

12. Caspi B, Cassif E, Auslender R, et al. The onion skin sign: a specific sonographic marker of appendiceal mucocele. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 117-21.

13. Kalu E, Croucher C. Appendiceal mucocele: a rare differential diagnosis of a cystic right adnexal mass. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005; 271: 86-8.

14. Smeenk RM, Bruin SC, van Velthuysen MLF, et al. Pseudomyxoma peritonei. Curr Probl Surg 2008; 45: 527-75.

15. Sugarbaker PH. Pseudomyxoma peritonei. A cancer whose biology is cha-

racterized by a redistribution phenomenon. Ann Surg 1994; 219: 109-11.

16. Ronnett BM, Schmookler BM, Diener-West M, et al. Immunohistochemical evidence supporting the appendiceal origin of pseudomyxoma peritonei in women. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1997; 16: 1-9.

17. Sugarbaker PH, Ronnett BM, Archer A, et al. Pseudomyxoma peritonei syndrome. Adv Surg 1996; 30: 233-80.

18. Baratti D, Kusamura S, Martinetti A, et al. Prognostic value of circulating tumor markers in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14: 2300-8.
Copyright: © 2010 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Quick links
© 2021 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe