Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Case Reports in Oncological Medicine
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 392576, 6 pages
Case Report

Endometrioid Paraovarian Borderline Cystic Tumor in an Infant with Proteus Syndrome

1Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Rebagliati Hospital, Lima, Peru
2Department of Genetics, Rebagliati Hospital, Lima, Peru
3Department of Gynecology-Oncology, Rebagliati Hospital, Lima, Peru
4Department of Pathology, Rebagliati Hospital, Lima, Peru

Received 21 August 2015; Revised 26 September 2015; Accepted 30 September 2015

Academic Editor: Yoshihito Yokoyama

Copyright © 2015 Liliana Vasquez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Ovarian and paraovarian neoplasms are uncommon in children, mainly originating from germ cell tumors and, least frequently, epithelial tumors. There is an association between genital tract tumors and Proteus syndrome, a rare, sporadic, and progressive entity, characterized by a postnatal overgrowth in several tissues caused by a mosaic mutation in the AKT1 gene. We describe a 20-month-old asymptomatic infant with Proteus syndrome who developed an endometrioid paraovarian borderline cystic tumor. This is the youngest patient so far reported in the literature with this rare syndrome and an adnexal tumor of borderline malignancy. A total of nine patients have been described with female tract tumors and associated Proteus syndrome, which includes bilateral ovarian cystadenomas and other benign masses. A paraovarian neoplasm is extremely rare in children and could be considered a criterion for Proteus syndrome. Standardized staging and treatment of these tumors are not well established; however, most authors conclude that these neoplasms must be treated as their ovarian counterparts.

1. Introduction

Ovarian and paraovarian neoplasms are rare in children and represent less than 5% of solid tumors [13]. The most common age at presentation is the second decade of life and usually older girls are at greatest risk of malignancy [4]. Incidence of ovarian neoplasms in the pediatric age group is unknown, but it is estimated at 2.6 cases per 100,000 girls per year [2]. The most common histological subtype of pediatric ovarian cancer is derived from germ cells [57], followed by epithelial tumors, such as cystadenomas or adenocarcinomas. Primary malignant paraovarian epithelial tumors are even more rare, previously described in literature as cystadenocarcinomas with low malignant potential [8, 9].

Proteus syndrome (PS) is a rare and sporadic disorder that causes postnatal overgrowth of multiple tissues in a mosaic pattern [10].

Cohen Jr. and Hayden first described it in 1979 as “a new hamartomatous syndrome” [11]. Wiedemann et al. further explained the syndrome and named it Proteus syndrome [12]. Since its first description until today, there have only been approximately 200 diagnosed cases in developed countries. PS is a progressive disorder that most commonly affects the skeleton, skin, adipose, and central nervous systems, causing severe overgrowth and disfigurement, physical disability, and a decline in the patient’s quality of life [13]. It is associated with a range of tumors, pulmonary complications, and a striking predisposition to deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism [14]. Among such tumors are those derived from lymphatic tissue and ovarian tumors, which are also included in the diagnostic criteria for this syndrome.

We report an infant with PS, who developed an endometrioid borderline paraovarian cystic tumor. This is the tenth case reported worldwide presenting an adnexal mass associated with this rare syndrome and the first case reported in our region.

2. Case Report

A female patient, originated from a third pregnancy and nonconsanguineous marriage, is described. Her mother was hospitalized during the second and third trimester of pregnancy, due to preterm labor and oligohydramnios. She was delivered vaginally at 36 weeks of gestation, with a birth weight of 3098 g. Upon birth, she presented normal anthropometric parameters and had no family history of any disease. At five months of age, she was noted to have abnormal augmentation of the size of her inferior limbs and asymmetric finger growth, especially involving the second finger on the right hand (Figures 1(a) and 1(b)) that required amputation at 12 months of age. Also, the patient showed several soft tissue and epidermic nevi (Figure 1(c)).

Figure 1: (a) Asymmetric overgrowth of the second finger of right hand. (b) After finger amputation. (c) Cerebriform connective tissue nevus of foot.

According to the clinical criteria for diagnosis of PS, our patient had the three general criteria and also had specific criteria from categories A and B (Table 1) [15, 16]. A genetic study was performed in two affected tissues, looking for the c.49G>A mutation in the AKT1 gene, but it could not been found.

Table 1: Revised Proteus syndrome diagnostic criteria (Turner et al., 2004) [15].

At 20 months of age, the patient presented painless vaginal bleeding and gynecomastia; no pain or size augmentation in the abdominal region was noted. An ultrasound image showed a right solid paraovarian mass, measuring 29 × 25 × 27 mm, with scarce peripheral vascularization on Doppler imaging. The uterus and both ovaries presented no alterations. At first, CA 125 level was elevated (164 UI). A pelvic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) showed a heterogeneously enhanced round mass next to the right ovary (Figure 2). No metastases were found. The patient underwent a laparotomy, where a right 2 × 2 cm violaceous paraovarian tumor was found. Excision of the tumor (tumorectomy) was completed with no evidence of rupture (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)). Omentum, peritoneal surface, and ascitic fluid samples were taken; but as fluid was scarce, peritoneal lavage was performed. Pathology was described as a well-differentiated endometrioid borderline tumor with villoglandular pattern G1 (Figures 4(a) and 4(b)); peritoneal lavage tested positive for tumoral cells, (Figure 4(c)) but no other abnormal pathological findings were made.

Figure 2: Preoperative axial contrast-enhanced CT scan showing a mass growing next to the right ovary (white arrow).
Figure 3: Intraoperative findings of laparotomy. (a) Paraovarian mass (blue arrow) and right tube (white arrow). Right ovary is located behind tumor. (b) After tumor excision, left and right tubes (white arrows) and normal uterus (green arrow) are shown.
Figure 4: H&E stain, microscopic image. (a) 10x magnification. Architecture of paraovarian endometrioid borderline cystic tumor with villoglandular pattern. (b) 40x magnification. (c) 40x peritoneal wash. Pleomorphic, well-differentiated endometrioid groups of tumor cells, found in a peritoneal fluid.

The patient presented a favorable postoperatory evolution and received 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy administered every 21 days; a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15; and carboplatin AUC 6 during day 1. At the time of this report, the patient is alive and well at 2 years of follow-up with no evidence of disease.

3. Discussion

Ovarian and paraovarian masses are infrequent among girls, representing less than 5% of solid tumors among children and less than 1.5% of malignant tumors [2]. Clinically, presenting symptoms are abdominal pain, a palpable tumor on a routine examination, or the presence of endocrine alterations, such as precocious puberty [17]. Diagnosis of malignant lesions generally occurs late, because of low levels of suspicion or unspecific symptoms.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ovarian tumors are classified into major 3 groups (surface epithelial tumors, germ cell tumors, and sex-cord stromal tumors) and other minor tumors. The most common histological group at pediatric age is the one originating from germ cells [57], with a great variety of histological subgroups [18]. Epithelial tumors are very rare among young girls; moreover, the finding of an endometrioid subtype, typically seen among older women [7], is even more infrequent. Also, most papers refer mainly to ovarian pathology; there is very little information regarding fallopian tubes and paratubal/paraovarian masses, this being restricted to small series and reports on clinical cases.

PS is a rare disorder, characterized by an abnormal overgrowth of several tissues, caused by a mosaic activating mutation in the AKT1 gene (c.49G>A, p.Glu17Lys) [10, 19]. Clinical diagnosis includes congenital morphological criteria, typical skin lesions, and association with tumors in postnatal life [10, 20]. This gene is in charge of sporadically activating growth of various tissues (epidermal, connective, osseous, fat, and endothelial) during embryonic development and it is characterized by partial gigantism of hands and feet, skin hemihypertrophy, epidermal nevi, subcutaneous hamartomas, macrocephaly, cranial anomalies, and connective tissue nevi. The latter is almost pathognomonic [15, 21]. Our patient met the established criteria for clinical diagnosis of PS showed in Table 1; however, the genetic testing performed could not find the target mutation in AKT1 gene.

Several benign and malignant tumors are associated with PS [10, 22], such as lipomas, haemangiomas, and lymphangiomas and, less frequently, genital tract tumors. These neoplasia cases usually occur in the second decade of life, most commonly bilateral ovarian cystadenomas or salivary gland monomorphic adenomas [15], which have an important role in establishing diagnosis for PS. Gordon et al. [23] reported a girl with PS and bilateral mucinous cystadenomas of the ovary. Furthermore, Babovic et al. [24] described the association among microdeletion of gene 10q23 and bilateral cystadenoma of the ovary and young polyposis in a teenager. Reports of patients with adnexal tumors and PS are rare and mainly describe benign tumors [2527]. When conducting a revision of reported cases worldwide, we found only 9 cases, and one of them, reported by Raju et al. [28], belongs to a 3-year-old girl with PS, who developed a low-or-borderline malignant endometrioid cystadenoma lesion with villoglandular pattern. Development of a borderline ovarian neoplasia at a very young age supports the genetic mechanism of overgrowth seen in this syndrome and also represents the youngest patient suffering from endometrioid paraovarian cystic tumor.

Staging and treatment of epithelial paraovarian tumors among adult women are not adequately described [29] and there is even less evidence regarding the pediatric population. Its rarity in children has not allowed publishing multicentric prospective series; therefore, management is mainly based on studies involving adult patients. The majority of authors defend the fact that these tumors must be handled like their ovarian counterparts [8], that is, performing an adequate surgical staging, whether it is conservative or radical. In the present case, conservative surgery (tumorectomy) was performed due to the patient’s young age, desired future fertility, and lack of unfavorable intraoperative findings, such as tumoral adherences or rupture. Surgical treatment is vital and could be curative; chemotherapy is only used in cases of patients with inoperable disease or a microscopic or macroscopic residual disease but remains controversial. Due to the presence of ascitic fluid (testing positive for tumoral cells), stage IC was established, employing adjuvant chemotherapy. Due to the fact that this disorder is rare, there is no consensus on follow-up [30], although it is accepted worldwide that this should be frequent and based on tumoral markers and pelvic imaging.

In conclusion, the finding of a paraovarian neoplasm is extremely rare in children and could be considered a clinical criterion for PS. Standardized staging and treatment of these tumors are not well established; however, most authors conclude that these neoplasms must be treated as their ovarian counterparts.


Written informed consent was obtained from the patient’s parents for publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


  1. E. Gonzalo, I. Merino, A. Fdez-Teijeiro, and A. Navajas, “Tumores ováricos en la infancia: a propósito de una revisión casuística,” Anales Españoles de Pediatría, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 491–494, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  2. K. A. P. Schultz, S. F. Sencer, Y. Messinger, J. P. Neglia, and M. E. Steiner, “Pediatric ovarian tumors: a review of 67 cases,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 167–173, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. L. Cass, E. Hawkins, M. L. Brandt et al., “Surgery for ovarian masses in infants, children, and adolescents: 102 consecutive patients treated in a 15-year period,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 693–699, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. F. Brown, A. Hebra, K. McGeehin, and A. J. Ross III, “Ovarian masses in children: a review of 91 cases of malignant and benign masses,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 930–932, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. H. Malogolowkin, G. H. Mahour, M. Krailo, and J. A. Ortega, “Germ cell tumors in infancy and childhood: a 45-year experience,” Fetal and Pediatric Pathology, vol. 10, no. 1-2, pp. 231–241, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Gribbon, S. H. Ein, and K. Mancer, “Pediatric malignant ovarian tumors: a 43-year review,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 480–484, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. López Saiz, M. S. Fernández, V. Segarra et al., “Solid ovarian tumors in childhood,” Cirugía Pediátrica, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 104–107, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. M. Altaras, R. Jaffe, M. Corduba, M. Holtzinger, and C. Bahary, “Primary paraovarian cystadenocarcinoma: clinical and management aspects and literature review,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 268–272, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. K. Kaur, S. Gopalan, S. K. Gupta, and L. K. Dhaliwal, “Parovarian cystadenocarcinoma: a case report,” Asia-Oceania Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 131–135, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. L. G. Biesecker, “The multifaceted challenges of Proteus syndrome,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 285, no. 17, pp. 2240–2243, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. M. M. Cohen Jr. and P. W. Hayden, “A newly recognized hamartomatous syndrome,” Birth Defects: Original Article Series, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 291–296, 1979. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. H.-R. Wiedemann, G. R. Burgio, P. Aldenhoff, J. Kunze, H. J. Kaufmann, and E. Schirg, “The proteus syndrome,” European Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 5–12, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. M. Cohen Jr., “Overgrowth syndromes: an update,” Advances in Pediatrics, vol. 46, pp. 441–491, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. L. G. Biesecker and J. C. Sapp, “Proteus Syndrome,” in GeneReviews, R. A. Pagon, M. P. Adam, H. H. Ardinger et al., Eds., University of Washington, Seattle, Wash, USA, 2012, View at Google Scholar
  15. J. T. Turner, M. M. Cohen Jr., and L. G. Biesecker, “Reassessment of the Proteus syndrome literature: application of diagnostic criteria to published cases,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 111–122, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. M. M. Cohen Jr., “Proteus syndrome,” in Overgrowth Syndromes, M. M. Cohen Jr., G. Neri, and R. Weksberg, Eds., chapter 9, pp. 75–110, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  17. K. S. H. de Silva, S. Kanumakala, S. R. Grover, C. W. Chow, and G. L. Warne, “Ovarian lesions in children and adolescents—an 11-year review,” Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 951–957, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. C. R. Pinkerton, “Malignant germ cell tumours in childhood,” European Journal of Cancer Part A, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 895–901, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. J. Lindhurst, J. C. Sapp, J. K. Teer et al., “A mosaic activating mutation in AKT1 associated with the proteus syndrome,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 365, no. 7, pp. 611–619, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. L. G. Biesecker, R. Happle, J. B. Mulliken et al., “Proteus syndrome: diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, and patient evaluation,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 389–395, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. P. Redondo, “Malformaciones vasculares (I). Concepto, clasificación, fisiopatogenia y manifestaciones clínicas,” Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 141–158, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. M. M. Cohen Jr., “Proteus syndrome: clinical evidence for somatic mosaicism and selective review,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 645–652, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. P. L. Gordon, R. S. Wilroy, O. E. Lasater, and M. M. Cohen Jr., “Neoplasms in Proteus syndrome,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 74–78, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. N. Babovic, P. S. Simmons, C. Moir et al., “Mucinous cystadenoma of ovary in a patient with juvenile polyposis due to 10q23 microdeletion: expansion of phenotype,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, vol. 152, no. 10, pp. 2623–2627, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. Š. Smrkolj, L. Sorč, J. Šinkovec, and S. Rakar, “Müllerian papilloma in a patient with Proteus syndrome: case report and review of the literature,” European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 428–432, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. K. M. Ezzeldin, A. A. Ezzeldin, A. J. Zahrani, and M. M. Al-Zaiem, “Precocious puberty in a female with Proteus syndrome,” Saudi Medical Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 332–334, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. H. Hong, J. K. Lee, S. H. Song et al., “Unilateral ovarian dermoid cyst accompanied by an ipsilateralparatubal cyst in a girl with Proteus Syndrome discovered by laparoscopic surgery,” Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. e107–e110, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. R. Raju, W. R. Hart, D. K. Magnuson, J. R. Reid, and D. G. Rogers, “Genital tract tumors in Proteus syndrome: report of a case of bilateral paraovarian endometrioid cystic tumors of borderline malignancy and review of the literature,” Modern Pathology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 172–180, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. L. F. A. De Areia, C. Frutuoso, N. Amaral, I. Dias, and C. De Oliveira, “Paraovarian tumor of borderline malignancy—a case report,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 680–682, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. V. L. Seltzer, L. Molho, A. Fougner et al., “Parovarian cystadenocarcinoma of low-malignant potential,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 216–221, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus