Endosalpingiosis in axillary lymph nodes: a possible pitfall in the staging of patients with breast carcinoma.
ABSTRACT The occurrence of benign epithelial inclusions in lymph nodes is well documented and can sometimes mimic metastatic carcinoma. Benign müllerian inclusions, such as endometriosis and endosalpingiosis, are common in pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, but their presence in supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes is a rare event. We report our experience with 3 patients found to have endosalpingiosis in axillary sentinel lymph nodes obtained for staging of breast carcinoma. All patients were postmenopausal women, with age ranging between 65 and 75 years. Endosalpingiosis involved a single lymph node in 1 patient, and 2 nodes in each of the other 2; it was present in the lymph node capsule in all the 3 cases, with few glands scattered within the lymph node parenchyma in 2 of the patients. The glands contained ciliated and intercalated peg cells, had no periglandular endometrial-type stroma, and showed no atypia or mitotic activity. The epithelium demonstrated positive nuclear immunoreactivity for WT1 and PAX8, and was devoid of myoepithelium or basement membrane. Endosalpingiosis had been misinterpreted as metastatic carcinoma at another hospital in 1 of the 3 patients, with subsequent dissection of 19 additional benign axillary lymph nodes. We conclude that endosalpingiosis can involve axillary lymph nodes and closely simulate metastatic mammary carcinoma. Morphologic identification of ciliated cells and "peg" cells is most helpful to recognize this benign inclusion, and positive immunoreactivity for WT1 and/or PAX8 can be used to support the diagnosis.
- SourceAvailable from: Hae-Hyeog Lee[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In gynecology, endosalpingiosis is a benign condition in which the fallopian tube-like epithelium is found outside the fallopian tube. The thirty-four point five percent of endosalpingiosis cases have concurrent endometriosis and 40% of the endosalpingiosis group are in postmenopausal states. In contrast with endometriosis, there are no significant links between infertility, chronic pelvic pain and endosalpingiosis. The symptoms of endosalpingiosis are not yet settled. Endosalpingiosis is almost always an incidental finding; it is commonly found through microscopic examinations, and is then confirmed by pathologists for excision and biopsy. Therefore, the clinical differential diagnosis of an intramural mass is more important for clinicians when discussing further surgery with the patients. We report case of woman who has endosalpingiosis and is presented with vaginal bleeding. We first suspect the disease during physical examination. Under the impression of pelvic mass, laboratory tests and radiological images of contrast enhanced chest computer tomography are taken. Images show multisepted cystic masses in left adnexa. To rule out the pelvic mass, we executed exploratory laparotomy. Pathologic results show endosalpingiosis near the ovary section. But the endosalpingiosis, is not generally considered a pathology, and thus, no treatment is necessary.Journal of menopausal medicine. 04/2014; 20(1):32-4.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The occurence of Mullerian epithelial inclusions, especially endosalpingiosis, in pelvic and other subdiaphragmatic lymph nodes is well known. In contrast, Mullerian inclusions involving lymph nodes above the diaphragm is uncommon, although occasional cases of endosalpingiosis have been reported. We report a case of benign Mullerian inclusions of mucinous endocervical type (endocervicosis) coexistent with metastatic breast-infiltrating ductal carcinoma in 2 axillary lymph nodes. The inclusions exhibited diffuse positive staining with CK7, PAX8, CA125, and estrogen receptor and were WT1 negative. To our knowledge, this is the first report of endocervicosis involving supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes. Close morphologic examination and immunohistochemistry assists in distinguishing Mullerian inclusions from metastatic adenocarcinoma.09/2014;
- Pathology 12/2014; 46(7):662-5. · 2.62 Impact Factor