Advertisement

Florid mesothelial hyperplasia of the tunica vaginalis: report of two cases with immunohistochemical findings

  • Daniel Abensur AthanazioEmail author
  • Andrea de Oliveira Cruz
  • Luiza Oliveira Barbosa
  • Isabela Soares Pimenta
  • Nathanael Pinheiro de FreitasJr.
Urology - Letter to the Editor

Editor,

Mirroring reactive lesions in other surface membranes, mesothelial hyperplasia of the tunica vaginalis may be so florid that it can mimic malignant mesothelioma or adenocarcinoma. In the largest series reported to date (n = 12), by Epstein et al. [1], 75% of all cases are associated with hydrocele and 1 case (8%) with hematocele. Before that series, mesothelial hyperplasia of tunica vaginalis was thought to be associated more commonly with hernial sacs, while malignant mesothelioma would be more associated with hydrocele sacs [2]. Awareness of that florid reactive condition is important, since true malignant mesothelioma of tunica vaginalis is a rare tumor—0.3% to 5% of all malignant mesotheliomas, with about 100 cases reported so far [2].

Case 1: a 41-year-old patient who had a long-term history of hydrocele. At intraoperative inspection, a focal thickening of tunica vaginalis was noted (Fig.  1). Case 2: a 72-year-old patient sought medical attention due to progressive...

Keywords

Mesothelial hyperplasia Testis Tunica vaginalis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee S, Illei PB, Han JS, Epstein JI (2014) Florid mesothelial hyperplasia of the tunica vaginalis mimicking malignant mesothelioma: a clinicopathologic study of 12 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 38(1):54–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chekol SS, Sun CC (2012) Malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis; diagnostic studies and differential diagnoses. Arch Pathol Lab Med 136:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Churg A, Colby TV, Cagle P et al (2000) The separation of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations. Am J Surg Pathol 24:1183–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attanoos RL, Griffin A, Gibbs AR (2003) The use of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing reactive from neoplastic mesothelium. A novel use for desmin and comparative evaluation with epithelial membrane antigen, p53, platelet-derived growth factor-receptor, P-glycoprotein and Bcl-2. Histopathology 43:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    King JE, Thatcher N, Pickering CA, Hasleton PS (2006) Sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical markers used in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma: a detailed systematic analysis using published data. Histopathology 48(3):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Addis B, Roche H (2009) Problems in mesothelioma diagnosis. Histopathology 54(1):55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Abensur Athanazio
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Andrea de Oliveira Cruz
    • 1
  • Luiza Oliveira Barbosa
    • 1
  • Isabela Soares Pimenta
    • 1
  • Nathanael Pinheiro de FreitasJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Imagepat LaboratorySalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Patologia e Medicina Legal, Faculdade de Medicina da BahiaUniversidade Federal da BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations