Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Medical Imaging 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Case report

Localized biphasic malignant mesothelioma presenting as a giant pelvic wall mass: a rare case report and literature review

verfasst von: Yunsong Liu, Jingjun Wu, Ying Zhao, Pengxin Zhang, Zhengyu Hua, Wan Dong, Tao Lin, Ailian Liu

Erschienen in: BMC Medical Imaging | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Localized biphasic MPeM is rare in clinical practice, we reviewed 8 cases of localized biphasic MPeM (including our present case), and summarized the clinical and imaging features of the disease.

Case presentation

We reported a 79-year-old man with chief complaint of a narrowing in the caliber of the stool for one year. A soft tissue shadow was occasionally found by CT examination in the right pelvic wall, and it was diagnosed as localized biphasic malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) by postoperative pathology. Radical excision was performed and no radio-chemotherapy was applied. Nearly six years after surgery, the mass was significantly enlarged, and the neighboring tissues including rectum, prostate, seminal vesicle, and right ischial ramus were all infiltrated. The patient was in the end stage of cancer with poor prognosis.

Conclusions

The localized biphasic MPeM may show following characteristics: (1) with heterogeneous low-density and obscure margin; (2) with low incidence rate of ascites; (3) with few central hemorrhage and necrosis; (4) with few calcified structures; (5) with mild to moderate heterogeneous delayed enhancement on contrast-enhanced CT. The imaging characteristics can provide further information for the diagnosis of localized biphasic MPeM in the future.
Hinweise
Jingjun Wu is co-first author.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
AFP
Alpha fetoprotein
CEA
Carcino-embryonic antigen
CTA
Computed tomography angiography
MPeM
Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma
MM
Malignant mesothelioma
WHO
World health organization

Background

Mesothelioma is defined as the transformation of mesothelial cells from the lining of any human cavity into a tumor. The malignant mesothelioma (MM) is relatively rare in clinical practice, and has a highly invasive form. The most common site of MM was the pleura, and MM arising from the peritoneum of the pelvic wall was rarely reported [1]. The distribution of MM is diffuse or localized in two ways. The former is more common and presents as diffuse nodule or mass, the latter is relatively rare and presents as localized mass, which is usually large in size [2]. Histologic classification of MM includes epithelial, sarcomatoid, and biphasic subtypes according to World Health Organization (WHO) [3]. Simple epithelioid MM is the most common histologic type of the disease. Sarcomatoid and biphasic MM are relatively rare. To the best of our knowledge, only seven similar cases [2, 49] of localized biphasic malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) have been reported.
The present study reported a localized epithelial and sarcomatoid mixed mesothelioma derived from pelvic wall, of which diagnostic and therapeutic experience remain limited. We reviewed the patient’s clinical, imaging, pathological, therapeutic and prognostic information in order to provide more clues for this disease.

Case presentation

A 79-year-old man came to our gastrointestinal outpatient with complaint of a narrowing in the caliber of the stool without obvious cause for about 1 year. Otherwise, he had no history of asbestos exposure, hematochezia, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain and distention. He had a history of prostatectomy due to benign prostatic hyperplasia and he denied recent weight loss. Digital examination of rectum showed the lower boundary of a mass in the rectum was 2 cm from the anal margin, and the upper boundary could not be palpated. Therefore, the patient underwent colonoscopy endoscopic electrocoagulation resection.
A soft tissue shadow was occasionally found by pelvis CT examination in the right pelvic wall. The mass had well-defined boundary and was oval shape with size of 7.3 × 5.3 cm. No calcification was found within the mass. On unenhanced CT images, the mass was heterogeneous with suspected necrotic area (Fig. 1a). In arterial, venous and delayed phases, CT values were 32–61 Hu, 65–90 Hu, and 46–77 Hu, respectively. The lesion showed mild heterogeneous on delayed enhancement CT images (Fig. 1b-d). Otherwise, the rectum and prostate were pressed, and no sign of destruction was observed in the adjacent bone. The CT examination suggested that the mass may originate from striated muscles with malignant transformation, and it may belong to neurogenic benign tumor. The source of blood supply to the mass was identified by pelvic computed tomography angiography (CTA), which showed the mass was mainly supplied by the right internal iliac artery (Fig. 4b). Unfortunately, the local dissection of the right common iliac artery was observed by CTA, and delayed the treatment of pelvic mass. Then, the right common iliac artery dissection was treated in other hospital more than a month later.
Six month after the discovery of the pelvic mass, the mass was slightly larger observed by CT examination (Fig. 4a). The patient underwent radical excision of pelvic mass. Intraoperatively, a solid mass with complete capsule was disclosed at the right obturator site of the pelvic wall. The lesion was 8 × 6 cm in size, with nodular surface and well-defined boundary. The surgeons removed the mass completely. The patient did not receive radio-chemotherapy and was in good condition after surgery.
The postoperative pathological examination showed that the mass was biphasic differentiated to both epithelium and mesenchyma (Fig. 2a-b). Immunohistochemistry is also important for the diagnosis of the mass. The ki-67 was less than 10%, which suggested that tumor cell proliferation is relatively inactive (Fig. 2c). Mesothelioma cells were positive for CD34, calretinin, EMA, MC and Vimentin, and negative for CD99, CD117, CK5/6, CK7, CK20, HMB45 and S-100 (Fig. 3a-l). In summary, the tumor was considered as biphasic malignancy mesothelioma.
One and a half years after surgery, the patient underwent pelvic CT reexamination and no sign of tumor recurrence was found. Four years after surgery, the patient attended a local hospital due to progressive dysuria and lower abdominal pain. Then pelvic CT showed a soft tissue mass in the preexisting position and the mass was measured as 7.89 × 10.41 cm with oval shape and well-defined boundary (Fig. 4c). We still saw that the mass had heterogeneous density in unenhanced CT scan. In the arterial, venous and delayed phases, CT values were 36 Hu, 58 Hu, and 60 Hu, respectively. The mass showed mild to moderate heterogeneous delayed enhancement. The right ischium was destroyed. Neighboring tissues including rectum, prostate and seminal vesicle were all infiltrated and pressed by the mass. Then, the patient underwent three times chemoembolization successively, and he was significantly relieved of symptoms after treatment. Nearly 6 years after surgery, the patient came to our hospital for further palliative treatment of the tumor. CT reexamination revealed the mass had unclear boundary and significantly enlarged. The bone destruction of right ischial ramus was observed. Scattered and irregularly distributed patchy calcifications were observed in the mass, which may be a hypertrophic response caused by bone destruction. The walls of bladder, descending colon, and sigmoid colon were thickened due to tumor invasion (Fig. 4d). In addition, there was a peritoneal effusion. Finally, the patient was in the last stage with cachexia, and his prognosis was poor.

Discussion and conclusion

Our present case was a localized biphasic MM originated from the peritoneum of the pelvic wall. We made a detailed analysis about relevant publications, and our present case was also included (Table 1). The cases consisted of five males and three females (1.67: 1). In industrialized countries, the prevalence rates of MPeM ranged from 0.5 to 3 cases per million in men and from 0.2 to 2 cases per million in women [10]. So men may have a higher incidence than women. In Kawai et al. ‘s study [11], the ratio of men to women was 4.5 to 1, which is similar to our study. Patients were aged from 41 to 79 years, and the median age was 69 years old. The tumors appear to affect mainly the older population. Localized tumor in the liver was observed in 5/8 cases (62%), 2/8 (25%) in the abdominal wall, and 1/8 (13%) in the transverse colon. At present, the epidemiology of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma is more ambiguous than that of pleural mesothelioma. The epidemiology of MPeM varies with various factors. Asbestos exposure is the main cause of MPeM. But patients with peritoneal mesothelioma are less likely to have a well-defined history of asbestos exposure than patients with pleural mesothelioma [12]. Only 2 patients (25%) had a history of asbestos exposure. Typical initial symptoms of MPeM were abdominal pain, abdominal distention, or weight loss [13]. Initial symptom of 3 patients (38%) was abdominal pain. Four patients (50%) had no obvious symptoms. One (12%) patient noticed enlarging lump in right abdominal wall. Most patients showed normal results about biochemistry examinations. However, 4 patients (50%) had anemia on hematologic examinations, which may be due to bleeding from lumps. Tumor markers such as carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA), alpha fetoprotein (AFP), CA12–5, CA19–9 were normal in the 8 cases. Most of the cases reported as the localized tumors were with a median size of 11.2 cm (range 4–24 cm). One case had a very large mass,which occupied the right abdominal cavity and bilateral pelvic cavity.
Table 1
Literature review and clinical data analysis
Author/year
Age
Sex
Asbestos Exposure
Location
Size (cm)
Anemia
Initial symptom
Sasaki et al [4]/2009
66
Male
Yes
Liver
4
No
No obvious symptoms
Shao et al [2]/2011
77
Female
No
Right abdominal wall
Very large
No
Notice enlarging lump
Kohno et al [5]/2012
69
Male
Yes
Left abdominal wall
10.7
No
No obvious symptoms
Takehara et al [6]/2014
72
Male
No
Transverse colon
10
Yes
Abdominal pain
Serter et al [7]/2015
66
Male
No
Liver
20
Yes
Abdominal pain
Ali et al [8]/2016
41
Female
No
Liver
24
Yes
No obvious symptoms
Dalal et al [9]/2018
69
Female
No
Liver
9
Yes
Abdominal pain
Present case
79
Male
No
Liver
8
No
No obvious symptoms
Author/year
Tumor marker
Treatment
Follow-up
Sasaki et al [4]/2009
Normal
Radical excision
No recurrence or metastasis 6 months after surgery
Shao et al [2]/2011
Normal
Symptomatic treatment
Died 6 months after discovery
Kohno et al [5]/2012
Normal
Radical excision
No recurrence more than 7 months after operation
Takehara et al [6]/2014
Normal
Radical excision
Died 6 months after operation
Serter et al [7]/2015
Normal
Radical excision
Unknown
Ali et al [8]/2016
Normal
Radical excision
Unknown
Dalal et al [9]/2018
Normal
Radical excision and adjuvant chemotherapy
Recurrence and progression during follow-up
Present case
Normal
Radical excision
Recurrence 4 years after surgery
Next, we reviewed the immunohistochemical data of all present cases. In Table 2, mesothelioma cells were positive for calretinin in 8/8 (100%) cases, vimentin in 7/7 (100%), CK5/6 in 5/6 (83%), WT-1 in 3/5 (60%) and negative for CK20 in 3/3 (100%), HMB-45 in 3/3 (100%), S-100 in 4/4 (100%). So we found that the most dominant group of positive markers were calretinin, vimentin, CK5/6. Meanwhile, the most significant group of negative markers were CK20, HMB-45, S-100.
Table 2
Literature review and data analysis about radiological data
Author/year
Central hemorrhage and necrosis
Calcification
Heterogeneous low-density
Enhanced mode
poorly-defined margins
Ascite
Sasaki et al [4]/2009
Yes
No
Yes
peripheral staining
No
No
Shao et al [2]/2011
Yes
No
Yes
mild to moderate heterogeneous delayed enhancement
Yes
Yes
Kohno et al [5]/2012
Yes
No
Yes
peripheral staining
Yes
No
Takehara et al [6]/2014
No
No
No
peripheral staining
Yes
No
Serter et al [7]/2015
Yes
No
Yes
peripheral staining
Yes
No
Ali et al [8]/2016
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
No
Dalal et al [9]/2018
Yes
No
Yes
Unknown
Yes
No
Present case
No
No
Yes
mild to moderate heterogeneous delayed enhancement
No
Yes
At present, immunohistochemistry has been commonly used to diagnose malignant mesothelioma. However, CT, a commonly used diagnostic method for abdominal lesions, shows no specific manifestation in the diagnosis of MPeM. In the study of 244 MPeM cases, Tandon et al. found that the most sensitive immunohistochemical markers were calretinin (100%), WT1 (94%), and CK5/6 (89%) [14], which was similar to our study. Saito et al. believed that calretinin, CK 5/6, mesothelin, vimentin, epithelial membrane, and WT-1 were specific markers of tumor mesothelial origin [15]. Firstly, MPeM should be distinguished from similar benign lesions, such as reactive mesothelioma and mesenteritis. Kawai et al. found that EMA, P53, desmin and p-glycoproteins were 100% expressed in malignant pleural mesothelioma, but no positive marker was found in the cases of reactive mesothelioma [11]. One of the most effective methods to distinguish MPeM and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia was fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), which could be used to analyze the homozygous deletion at site 9p21, which was positive in 67% of pleural mesothelioma, but the positive rate of peritoneal mesothelioma was low, only 25% [16]. Therefore, this method was not applied in our case. Liang et al. [17] found that the pattern of peritoneal thickening and contrast-enhanced imaging were effective markers for differentiating MPeM and peritoneal carcinomatosis, but their case was DMPeM (Diffuse MPeM), so it was of little help in differentiating this case. Liang et al. also found that on CT images, the mesenteric lipomatosis showed soft tissue nodules, perivascular fatty halo and nodules, which may be helpful to distinguish MPeM from mesenteric lipomatosis. Malignant diseases include metastatic peritoneal adenocarcinoma and rhabdomyosarcoma were similar to MPeM. Peritoneal carcinoma was a metastatic feature of many organ malignancies, especially of the gastrointestinal tract and ovary, and must be considered as a first possibility even in the absence of a clear primary focus [17]. The most common malignancy reported by Walkey et al. was ovarian cancer [18]. Metastatic peritoneal adenocarcinoma is histologically difficult to distinguish from MPeM. Kawai et al. found that the best negative mesothelioma markers to distinguish epithelioid mesothelioma from serous carcinoma were be-ep4 and moc-31, and the best positive mesothelioma markers were d2–40 and calretinin [11]. The primary lesion of peritoneal adenocarcinoma found on CT is also a strong evidence for the diagnosis of metastatic peritoneal adenocarcinoma. Arora et al. found that a specific myogen, a muscle-derived marker, could rule out rhabdomyosarcoma if it was negative [19]. However, biphasic MPeM contained sarcoma components, so it was difficult to exclude rhabdomyosarcoma by relying on it alone. It required a combination of specific markers of epithelial and mesenchymal origin for a comprehensive analysis. In a word, immunohistochemical diagnosis of MPeM is progressing well, but there are still many problems. Due to the small number of cases, few specific imaging findings were found.
Therefore, we collected radiological data from all the biphasic MPeM cases of restricted growth patterns available at present. Radiological studies play an important role in the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of biphasic MPeM. Among them, the contrast-enhanced CT is the major imaging modality for MM [20]. CT has an advantage in distinguishing between biphasic MPeM and its surrounding tissues in order to observe whether there is pathological infiltration. In addition, CT has the ability to display images over a wide range and to clearly show lumps in different areas, which is helpful in finding the origin of biphasic MPeM. Because biphasic MPeM is extremely rare, there is currently few imaging description of localized biphasic MPeM. A review of eight cases was summed up about radiological data, and our present case was also included in Table 2. The masses presented as heterogeneous low-density lesion on non-contrast CT scan in 7/8 cases (88%). One case presented as homogeneous low density tumor. On dynamic enhanced CT scan, the lesions presented as peripheral staining in 4/6 (66.7%) and mild to moderate heterogeneous delayed enhancement in 2/6 (33.3%). Tumors with obscure margin were seen in 5/8 (63%) cases. Only one case had few small calcifications, and 75% cases (6/8) developed hemorrhage and necrosis in the center. In the present case, CT showed no obvious hemorrhage and necrosis in the center of the mass as shown in Fig. 1a, showing only a slightly heterogeneous density within the lesion. Although the histopathological image showed a small amount of extravasation of red blood cells in Fig. 2a, this didn’t definitively demonstrate significant bleeding in the central area of the lesion. Only two (25%) cases had ascites. We found no other significant imaging features.
Currently, no standard treatment of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma had been established, and localized MPeM has been usually treated with radical resection. In Table 1, all cases presented as localized tumor in the peritoneum at initial diagnosis. Radical excision was performed in seven cases, and only one patient undertook symptomatic treatment because the lesion was too large. In addition to radical resection, only one patient underwent postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. According to the analysis of follow-up data, we perceived that the prognosis was variable: two cases had no recurrence less than a year after surgery, two cases were recurrent postoperatively, and two cases were dead less than a year after surgery. Our patient experienced a period of nearly seven years from biphasic MM discovery to the last time follow-up, which demonstrated a relatively good prognosis. We suspected that the prognosis of localized biphasic MPeM was generally poor, and early treatment was urgently necessary.
At present, the diagnosis of MM is still difficult, and the diagnostic standards are usually pathological examination including immunohistochemistry. Although imaging examination has only made little progress in the diagnosis of MM, it can still show the spatial or temporal features of mass with a non-invasive way compared with pathology. The diagnostic efficacy of radiological examination for MM is improving by reviewing more cases of MM. Histology and immunohistochemistry also have limitations in the classification of subtypes of MM. The classification of subtypes of MM by imaging has been explored recently [2123]. For example, Escalon ea. al [21]. found the calcified pleural plaques and local invasion were more common in non-epithelioid subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Similar studies in the abdomen and pelvic need be further carried out in the future.
In summary, the present case and literature review suggest that the localized biphasic MPeM may show following characteristics: (1) with heterogeneous low-density and obscure margin; (2) with low incidence rate of ascites; (3) with few central hemorrhage and necrosis; (4) with few calcified structures; (5) with mild to moderate heterogeneous delayed enhancement on contrast-enhanced CT. We hope that our report on localized biphasic MPeM will provide further information for the diagnosis, classification and treatment of the disease in the future.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The patient provided written informed consent for publication of this case report and accompanying images.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Muta H, Sugita Y, Ohshima K, et al. Primary malignant pericardial sarcomatoid mesothelioma: an autopsy report.[J]. Pathol Int. 2017;67:311–5.CrossRef Muta H, Sugita Y, Ohshima K, et al. Primary malignant pericardial sarcomatoid mesothelioma: an autopsy report.[J]. Pathol Int. 2017;67:311–5.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Shao ZH, Gao XL, Yi XH, et al. Malignant mesothelioma presenting as a giant chest, abdominal and pelvic wall mass.[J]. Korean J Radiol. 2011;12:750–3.CrossRef Shao ZH, Gao XL, Yi XH, et al. Malignant mesothelioma presenting as a giant chest, abdominal and pelvic wall mass.[J]. Korean J Radiol. 2011;12:750–3.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibbs AR, Thunnissen FB. Histological typing of lung and pleural tumours: third edition.[J]. J. Clin. Pathol. 2001;54:498–9.CrossRef Gibbs AR, Thunnissen FB. Histological typing of lung and pleural tumours: third edition.[J]. J. Clin. Pathol. 2001;54:498–9.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasaki M, Araki I, Yasui T, et al. Primary localized malignant biphasic mesothelioma of the liver in a patient with asbestosis.[J]. World J. Gastroenterol. 2009;15:615–21.CrossRef Sasaki M, Araki I, Yasui T, et al. Primary localized malignant biphasic mesothelioma of the liver in a patient with asbestosis.[J]. World J. Gastroenterol. 2009;15:615–21.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Kohno M, Maruyama R, Kitagawa D, et al. Localized biphasic type malignant mesothelioma arising in the peritoneum: report of a case.[J]. Thorac Cancer. 2014;5:74–7.CrossRef Kohno M, Maruyama R, Kitagawa D, et al. Localized biphasic type malignant mesothelioma arising in the peritoneum: report of a case.[J]. Thorac Cancer. 2014;5:74–7.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Takehara Y, Endo S, Mori Y, et al. Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma with lymph node metastasis that originated in the transverse colon.[J]. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:112.CrossRef Takehara Y, Endo S, Mori Y, et al. Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma with lymph node metastasis that originated in the transverse colon.[J]. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:112.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Serter A, Buyukpinarbasili N, Karatepe O, et al. An unusual liver mass: primary malignant mesothelioma of the liver : CT and MRI findings and literature review.[J]. Jpn J Radiol. 2015;33:102–6.CrossRef Serter A, Buyukpinarbasili N, Karatepe O, et al. An unusual liver mass: primary malignant mesothelioma of the liver : CT and MRI findings and literature review.[J]. Jpn J Radiol. 2015;33:102–6.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Haji Ali R, Khalife M, El Nounou G, et al. Giant primary malignant mesothelioma of the liver: A case report.[J]. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;30:58–61.CrossRef Haji Ali R, Khalife M, El Nounou G, et al. Giant primary malignant mesothelioma of the liver: A case report.[J]. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;30:58–61.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Hassan D, Ligato S. Localized biphasic malignant peritoneal mesothelioma with rhabdoid features involving the liver: case report and review of the literature.[J]. Case Rep Pathol. 2019;2019:2732674.PubMedPubMedCentral Hassan D, Ligato S. Localized biphasic malignant peritoneal mesothelioma with rhabdoid features involving the liver: case report and review of the literature.[J]. Case Rep Pathol. 2019;2019:2732674.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Boffetta P. Epidemiology of peritoneal mesothelioma: a review.[J]. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:985–90.CrossRef Boffetta P. Epidemiology of peritoneal mesothelioma: a review.[J]. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:985–90.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kawai T, Tominaga S, Hiroi S, et al. Peritoneal malignant mesothelioma (PMM), and primary peritoneal serous carcinoma (PPSC) and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH) of the peritoneum. Immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) analyses.[J]. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69:706–12.CrossRef Kawai T, Tominaga S, Hiroi S, et al. Peritoneal malignant mesothelioma (PMM), and primary peritoneal serous carcinoma (PPSC) and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH) of the peritoneum. Immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) analyses.[J]. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69:706–12.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Welch LS, Acherman YI, Haile E, et al. Asbestos and peritoneal mesothelioma among college-educated men. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005;11:254–8.CrossRef Welch LS, Acherman YI, Haile E, et al. Asbestos and peritoneal mesothelioma among college-educated men. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005;11:254–8.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Mohamed F, Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneal mesothelioma. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2002;3:375–86.CrossRef Mohamed F, Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneal mesothelioma. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2002;3:375–86.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Tandon RT, Jimenez-Cortez Y, Taub R, et al. Immunohistochemistry in peritoneal mesothelioma: a single-center experience of 244 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:236–42.CrossRef Tandon RT, Jimenez-Cortez Y, Taub R, et al. Immunohistochemistry in peritoneal mesothelioma: a single-center experience of 244 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:236–42.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Saito H, Hasuda S, Nasu J, et al. A case of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma suggesting the utility of combining double-contrast radiography and endoscopy with computed tomography for diagnosis.[J]. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2017;10:371–6.CrossRef Saito H, Hasuda S, Nasu J, et al. A case of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma suggesting the utility of combining double-contrast radiography and endoscopy with computed tomography for diagnosis.[J]. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2017;10:371–6.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Illei PB, Rusch VW, Zakowski MF, et al. Homozygous deletion of CDKN2A and codeletion of the methylthioadenosine phosphorylase gene in the majority of pleuralmesotheliomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:2108–13.PubMed Illei PB, Rusch VW, Zakowski MF, et al. Homozygous deletion of CDKN2A and codeletion of the methylthioadenosine phosphorylase gene in the majority of pleuralmesotheliomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:2108–13.PubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Liang YF, Zheng GQ, Chen YF, et al. CT differentiation of diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma and peritoneal carcinomatosis.[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:709–15.CrossRef Liang YF, Zheng GQ, Chen YF, et al. CT differentiation of diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma and peritoneal carcinomatosis.[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:709–15.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Walkey MM, Friedman AC, Sohotra P. CT manifestations of peritoneal carcinomatosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:1035–41.CrossRef Walkey MM, Friedman AC, Sohotra P. CT manifestations of peritoneal carcinomatosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:1035–41.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Arora SK, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R, et al. Malignant biphasic peritoneal mesothelioma in a child: fine-needle aspiration cytology, histopathology, and immunohistochemical features along with review of literature.[J]. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40:1112–5.CrossRef Arora SK, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R, et al. Malignant biphasic peritoneal mesothelioma in a child: fine-needle aspiration cytology, histopathology, and immunohistochemical features along with review of literature.[J]. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40:1112–5.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Moore AJ, Parker RJ, Wiggins J. Malignant mesothelioma. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:34.CrossRef Moore AJ, Parker RJ, Wiggins J. Malignant mesothelioma. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:34.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Escalon JG, Harrington KA, Plodkowski AJ, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: are there imaging characteristics associated with different histologic subtypes on computed tomography?[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018;42:601–6.CrossRef Escalon JG, Harrington KA, Plodkowski AJ, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: are there imaging characteristics associated with different histologic subtypes on computed tomography?[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018;42:601–6.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Senyigit A, Bayram H, Babayigit C, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma caused by environmental exposure to asbestos in the southeast of Turkey: CT findings in 117 patients. Respir; Int Rev Thorac Dis. 2000;67:615–22. Senyigit A, Bayram H, Babayigit C, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma caused by environmental exposure to asbestos in the southeast of Turkey: CT findings in 117 patients. Respir; Int Rev Thorac Dis. 2000;67:615–22.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Seely JM, Nguyen ET, Churg AM, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: computed tomography and correlation with histology. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70:485–91.CrossRef Seely JM, Nguyen ET, Churg AM, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: computed tomography and correlation with histology. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70:485–91.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Localized biphasic malignant mesothelioma presenting as a giant pelvic wall mass: a rare case report and literature review
verfasst von
Yunsong Liu
Jingjun Wu
Ying Zhao
Pengxin Zhang
Zhengyu Hua
Wan Dong
Tao Lin
Ailian Liu
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Medical Imaging / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2342
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-00443-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Medical Imaging 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.