BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2007) 80, 878-883
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/16282081

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sugiyama, K
Right arrow Articles by Takehara, Y
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sugiyama, K
Right arrow Articles by Takehara, Y

Full paper

MR findings of pseudoneoplastic lesions in the uterine cervix mimicking adenoma malignum

K Sugiyama, MD1 and Y Takehara, MD, PhD2

1 Department of Radiology, Seirei Numazu Hospital, 902-6 Shichitanda Matsushita Hon-aza, Numazu, Shizuoka, 410-8555 and 2 Department of Radiology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, 431-3192, Japan

Correspondence: K Sugiyama, Department of Radiology, Seirei Numazu Hospital, 902-6 Shichitanda Matsushita Hon-aza, Numazu, Shizuoka, 410-8555 Japan. E-mail: koichiss37{at}yahoo.co.jp

Pseudoneoplastic glandular lesions are benign lesions that are often histologically and radiographically confused with adenoma malignum, which is a rare variant of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. 15 cases of pseudoneoplastic glandular lesions, characterized by multilocular cystic masses in the uterine cervix, were investigated; these lesions included endocervical glandular hyperplasia, deep nabothian cysts and tunnel cluster. All lesions were proven by conization or hysterectomy. The MR findings correlated closely to the histopathological specimens. As a result, MR findings of pseudoneoplastic glandular lesions were almost identical to those of adenoma malignum; hence, it was almost impossible to differentiate between the two pathologies. Radiologists should be aware that these two conditions are quite similar in morphology.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.