PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Hydatidiform mole (complete and partial), invasive mole, choriocarcinoma, placental site trophoblastic disease, and epithelioid trophoblastic tumour constitute the spectrum of benign and malignant gestational trophoblastic disease[1] Invasive mole, choriocarcinoma, placental site trophoblastic disease, and epithelioid trophoblastic tumour also classify under gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.[1] The prevalence of molar pregnancy shows great worldwide variation with reported rates of 12 per 1,000 pregnancies in Indonesia, India, and Turkey; one to two per 1,000 pregnancies in Japan and China; and 0.5 to one per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and Europe.[1] Ectopic pregnancy, which is primarily tubal, is the leading cause of first trimester maternal mortality.[2] Diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy is a combinatorial analysis of clinical signs and symptoms; beta-hCG trends; and ultrasonography.[2] Since ectopic gestations cause maternal deaths, the decisive role of the diagnostic test employed measured by its discriminative potential for a reliable preoperative diagnosis is paramount.[2] Although ultrasonography demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing ectopic gestations, inconsistencies in sonographic identification have been known to occur.[2] Particularly, ultrasonography suffers from limitations such as specifying the exact location of infrequent extrauterine presentations and identifying ectopic gestations with atypical features.[2] Molar pregnancies that are largely known to be placental in location have a known but rare potential for extrauterine proliferation.[3] Ectopic molar gestations are rare with only more than a hundred reported cases in scientific literature.[4] Our case delineates this uncommon entity and the superiority of magnetic resonance imaging in terms of diagnostic performance in characterizing the gestational mass over ultrasonography. This is pertinent considering the need to differentiate an ectopic molar pregnancy from an ectopic pregnancy without molar tissue because the potential for malignancy in the former atypical form is akin to that of an intrauterine molar pregnancy.[4].
摘要：
葡萄胎（完全和部分），侵袭性痣,绒毛膜癌,胎盘部位滋养细胞疾病，和上皮样滋养细胞肿瘤构成良性和恶性妊娠滋养细胞疾病的频谱[1]侵袭性葡萄胎，绒毛膜癌,胎盘部位滋养细胞疾病，上皮样滋养细胞肿瘤也属于妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤。[1]磨牙妊娠的患病率在全球范围内差异很大，据报道，印度尼西亚每1000例妊娠中有12例。印度,在日本和中国，每千例怀孕1至2例；在北美和欧洲，每千例怀孕0.5至1例。[1]异位妊娠，主要是输卵管，是孕早期孕产妇死亡的主要原因。[2]异位妊娠的诊断是临床体征和症状的组合分析;β-hCG趋势;和超声检查。[2]由于异位妊娠导致孕产妇死亡，诊断试验在可靠的术前诊断中的决定性作用是至关重要的.[2]尽管超声在诊断异位妊娠中显示出高敏感性和特异性，已知超声识别存在不一致。[2]特别是,超声检查存在局限性，例如指定不常见的宫外表现的确切位置以及识别具有非典型特征的异位妊娠。[2]主要已知为胎盘位置的磨牙妊娠具有已知但罕见的宫外增生潜力。[3]在科学文献中，异位磨牙妊娠很少见，仅有一百多例报道。[4]我们的病例描述了这种不常见的实体和磁共振成像在表征妊娠块的诊断性能方面的优越性。考虑到需要区分异位磨牙妊娠与没有磨牙组织的异位妊娠，这是相关的，因为以前非典型形式的恶性肿瘤的可能性类似于子宫内磨牙妊娠。[4].
