Cutaneous endometrial cancer arising from heterotopic endometriosis in an abdominal caesarean section scar

Primary versus secondary cutaneous endometriosis: Literature review and case study

Cutaneous endometriosis, characterized by the presence of endometrium or endometrial-like tissue outside of the uterine cavity, is an uncommon and chronic disease. Depending on a patient's history, cutaneous endometriosis is classified as either primary cutaneous endometriosis (PCE) or secondary cutaneous endometriosis (SCE). We report a case of SCE presenting with the classic triad of previous caesarean section, subcutaneous nodules at the site of the scar, and pain associated with menstruation. Considering histopathology as the standard, we confirmed a diagnosis of cutaneous endometriosis by ultrasound and histopathology. Furthermore, we compared and analyzed the clinical characteristics of PCE and SCE, the study included 20 and 14 patients with cutaneous endometriosis diagnosed with PCE and SCE respectively. In the PCE group, the mean age of patients at the onset was 33.7 years, while it was 40.6 years in the SCE group. The mean disease-duration time of PCE was shorter than that of SCE (1.3 vs. 2.8 years, P > 0.05). The most common clinical presentation of PCE and SCE was a nodule (90% vs. 86%). The PCE was mainly bleeding with pain (45%), whereas the SCE of only pain and bleeding with pain accounted for the same proportion (45%). The most common sites of PCE and SCE were in the umbilical region (90% vs. 57%, P < 0.05). In our study, some statistically significant difference was found between different types of CE and it may contribute to improve clinicians' understanding of the disease, and perform early diagnosis and treatment.

Malignancies Associated with Extraovarian Endometriosis: A Literature Review

Endometriosis-associated ovarian malignancies have been well documented. Although these malignancies also occur as extraovarian lesions, little is known about them. Thus, this literature review aimed to further explore these rarely experienced tumors. A total of 257 published cases between April 1990 and April 2020 were found using PubMed, and 212 cases were included in the analysis considering Sampson’s criteria and the history of endometriosis. We classified these cases as follows: intestine, abdominal scar, vagina and vulva, peritoneum and deep endometriosis, urinary tract, uterine cervix, and others. Age of patients, history of endometriosis, types of past hormonal therapy, symptoms, histological types, and treatment were identified. The most common tumor site was the intestine. Endometrioid carcinoma was the dominant histological type. Contrary to the ovary, clear cell carcinoma was rare in extraovarian sites. On the other hand, clear cell carcinoma represented the largest number of abdominal scars. This difference may help us to understand the development of endometriosis-related malignancies. Hormonal treatment was mentioned in 67 cases and estrogen replacement therapy in 33 cases. Although risks of estrogen therapy are still controversial, the highly differentiated histological types and hormone-dependent characteristics of endometriosis-associated malignancy should be considered. Physicians should be careful about estrogen monotherapy after hysterectomy and long-term hormone replacement therapy in patients with a history of endometriosis.

Abdominal wall endometriosis (a narrative review)

One of the rarest forms of endometriosis is abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE), which includes caesarean scar endometriosis. AWE remains a challenging condition because some issues related to this topic are still under debate. The increasing number of caesarean sections and laparotomies will expect to increase the rate of AWE. The current incidence in obstetrical and gynaecological procedures is still unknown. The disease is probably underestimated. The pathogenic mechanism involves local environment at the implant site including local inflammation and metalloproteinases activation due to local growth factors, estrogen stimulation through estrogen receptors and potential epigenetic changes. However, the underlying mechanisms are not fully explained, and we need more experimental models to understand them. The clinical presentation is heterogeneous; the patient may be seen by a gynaecologist, an endocrinologist, a general surgeon, an imaging specialist, or even an oncologist. No particular constellation of clinical risk factors has been identified, and the histological report is the major diagnostic tool for confirmation. Surgery is the first line of therapy. Further on we need protocols for multidisciplinary investigations and approaches.