Disorders of Sex Development

Chapter

Abstract

The term disorders in sexual differentiation (DSD) to designate all intersex disorders was introduced in the consensus classification of intersex disorders emanating from the Chicago Meeting in 2005 [1]. This classification considers the use of some terms, such as pseudohermaphroditism, hermaphroditism, sex reversal, and intersex situation, obsolete; however, it has given rise to many critical comments [2] because it was made on the basis of chromosomal constitution (peripheral karyotype of leukocytes). Specifically, in cases of gonadal dysgenesis, entities with a completely different histopathology, such as 45,X0 Turner’s syndrome and its variants and mixed gonadal dysgenesis (45,X0/45,XY), have been included with Klinefelter’s syndrome and its variants under the term disorders in sex development. On the other hand, other entities with a similar histopathology, such as 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis and 46,XX gonadal dysgenesis, have been classified into different groups. Two facts have prevented a solution to the problem in classifying these disorders: (1) the same karyotype may produce different phenotypes; and (2) it has been progressively understood that gonadal dysgenesis, instead of showing one cellular line, has mosaicisms or more complex chromosomal constitutions. Therefore, the classification of these disorders considering different viewpoints, including genetic, endocrinologic, clinical, and histopathologic, has not yet been resolved.

Keywords

Migration Europe Adenoma Testosterone Androgen 

References

  1. 1.
    Lee PA, Houk CP, Ahmed SF, Hughes IA, International Consensus Conference on Intersex organized by the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. International Consensus Conference on Intersex. Pediatrics. 2006;118:e488–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damiani D, Guerra-Júnior G. New definitions and classifications of the intersexual states: in which the Chicago Consensus has contributed to the state of the art? Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2007;51:1013–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cools M, Stoop H, Kersemaekers AM, Drop SL, Wolffenbuttel KP, Bourguignon JP, et al. Gonadoblastoma arising in undifferentiated gonadal tissue within dysgenetic gonads. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91:2404–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jirasek J. Principles of reproductive embryology. In: Simpson JL, editor. Disorders of sexual differentiation. New York: Academic Press; 1976. p. 51–111.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krstic ZD, Smoljanic Z, Vukanic D, Varinac D, Janjic G. True hermaphroditism: 10 years’ experience. Pediatr Surg Int. 2000;16:580–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yordam N, Alikasifoglu A, Kandemir N, Caglar M, Balci S. True hermaphroditism: clinical features, genetic variants and gonadal histology. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2001;14:421–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkmann AO. Molecular basis of androgen insensitivity. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2001;179:105–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Imperato-McGinley J, Canovatchel WJ. Complete androgen insensitivity: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 1992;3:75–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity Hospital La PazMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy, Histology, and NeuroscienceUniversity Autonoma of MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Department of PathologyUniversity Autonoma of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations