Advertisement

Fallopian Tube

  • David L. Kolin
  • Brooke E. HowittEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The fallopian tube contains a muscular wall and plicae lined by ciliated, tubal-type epithelium. While primary tumors of the fallopian tube are unusual, benign, borderline, and malignant tumors occur, many of which have similar counterparts in the endometrium and ovary. Over the past two decades, there has been a realization that the fimbriae are the source of many (and some believe all) cases of “ovarian” high-grade serous carcinoma. The spectrum of serous tubal neoplasia includes p53 signatures, serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, and high-grade serous carcinoma. These entities have unique morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic features, with varied clinical significance. The fallopian tube is a frequent site of metastatic disease from not only the ovary and uterus but may also contain metastases from distant sites (most often the gastrointestinal tract and breast). Metastases may be located within the serosa, mucosa, muscular wall, or intravascular spaces. The fallopian tube can manifest several metaplasias, such as mucinous and transitional, as well as reactive phenomena, including pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia. Sexually transmitted diseases are the most common causes of infectious salpingitis, which may result in pelvic inflammatory disease and ectopic pregnancy. Because the fimbriae are a site of serous carcinogenesis, the SEE-FIM grossing protocol was developed to extensively sample the fimbria in risk-reducing salpingectomies and is now applied in many specimens containing salpingectomies, including those from low-risk women. At a minimum, entirely submitting and examining the distal fallopian tube are generally advised.

Keywords

Fallopian tube Serous carcinoma Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma Ectopic pregnancy Pelvic inflammatory disease 

References

  1. 1.
    Rock JA, Jones HW. Te Linde’s operative gynecology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mills SE. Histology for pathologists. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Standring S. Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice. 41st ed. New York: Elsevier; 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donnez J, Casanas-Roux F, Caprasse J, et al. Cyclic changes in ciliation, cell height, and mitotic activity in human tubal epithelium during reproductive life. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:554–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verhage HG, Bareither ML, Jaffe RC, Akbar M. Cyclic changes in ciliation, secretion and cell height of the oviductal epithelium in women. Am J Anat. 1979;156:505–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001560405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt JL, Lynn AAA. Histologic features of surgically removed fallopian tubes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:951–5.  https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-9985(2002)126<0951:HFOSRT>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seidman JD, Woodburn R. Pseudoxanthomatous salpingitis as an ex vivo model of fallopian tube serous carcinogenesis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2015;34:275–80.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zorzi MG, Pusiol T, Piscioli F. Melanosis tubae: histogenesis and appropriate terminology. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2010;29:248–51.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181c03fec.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piek JMJ, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP, et al. Dysplastic changes in prophylactically removed fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol. 2001;195:451–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colgan TJ, Murphy J, Cole DE, et al. Occult carcinoma in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens: prevalence and association with BRCA germline mutation status. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:1283–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medeiros F, Muto MG, Lee Y, et al. The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:230–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Callahan MJ, Crum CP, Medeiros F, et al. Primary fallopian tube malignancies in BRCA-positive women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3985–90.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.12.2622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:161–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000213335.40358.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crum CP, Drapkin R, Miron A, et al. The distal fallopian tube: a new model for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328011a21f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Y, Li L, Wang Y, et al. Fallopian tube secretory cell expansion: a sensitive biomarker for ovarian serous carcinogenesis. Am J Transl Res. 2015;7:2082–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen EY, Mehra K, Mehrad M, et al. Secretory cell outgrowth, PAX2 and serous carcinogenesis in the fallopian tube. J Pathol. 2010;222:110–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2739.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saleemuddin A, Folkins AK, Garrett L, et al. Risk factors for a serous cancer precursor (“p53 signature”) in women with inherited BRCA mutations. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:226–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee Y, Miron A, Drapkin R, et al. A candidate precursor to serous carcinoma that originates in the distal fallopian tube. J Pathol. 2007;211:26–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2091.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xian W, Miron A, Roh M, et al. The Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS): a model for the initiation of p53 signatures in the distal fallopian tube. J Pathol. 2010;220:17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2624.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murdoch WJ, Martinchick JF. Oxidative damage to DNA of ovarian surface epithelial cells affected by ovulation: carcinogenic implication and chemoprevention. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2004;229:546–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Przybycin CG, Kurman RJ, Ronnett BM, et al. Are all pelvic (nonuterine) serous carcinomas of tubal origin? Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1407–16.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181ef7b16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conner JR, Meserve E, Pizer E, et al. Outcome of unexpected adnexal neoplasia discovered during risk reduction salpingo-oophorectomy in women with germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:280–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.12.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Horn L-C, Kafkova S, Leonhardt K, et al. Serous tubal in situ carcinoma (STIC) in primary peritoneal serous carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2013;32:339–44.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e31826a629b.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meserve EEK, Mirkovic J, Conner JR, et al. Frequency of “incidental” serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) in women without a history of or genetic risk factor for high-grade serous carcinoma: a six-year study. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:69–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.04.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seidman JD, Krishnan J, Yemelyanova A, Vang R. Incidental serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and non-neoplastic conditions of the fallopian tubes in grossly normal adnexa. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016;35:423–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schneider S, Heikaus S, Harter P, et al. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma associated with extraovarian metastases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:444–51.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Movahedi-Lankarani S, Krishnamurti U, Bell DA, et al.. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary tumors of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, 1.0.0.1. College of American Pathologists; 2017.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meserve EEK, Brouwer J, Crum CP. Serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasia: the concept and its application. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:710–21.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patrono MG, Iniesta MD, Malpica A, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC): a comprehensive review. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;139:568–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.09.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chay WY, McCluggage WG, Lee C-H, et al. Outcomes of incidental fallopian tube high-grade serous carcinoma and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma in women at low risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26:431–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wethington SL, Park KJ, Soslow RA, et al. Clinical outcome of isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:1603–11.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182a80ac8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weinberger V, Bednarikova M, Cibula D, Zikan M. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)—clinical impact and management. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16:1311–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2016.1247699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morrison JC, Blanco LZ, Vang R, Ronnett BM. Incidental serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and early invasive serous carcinoma in the nonprophylactic setting. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:442–53.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rabban JT, Garg K, Crawford B, et al. Early detection of high-grade tubal serous carcinoma in women at low risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome by systematic examination of fallopian tubes incidentally removed during benign surgery. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:729–42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gilks CB, Irving J, Köbel M, et al. Incidental nonuterine high-grade serous carcinomas arise in the fallopian tube in most cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:357–64.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McDaniel AS, Stall JN, Hovelson DH, et al. Next-generation sequencing of tubal intraepithelial carcinomas. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1128.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1618.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Howitt BE, Hanamornroongruang S, Lin DI, et al. Evidence for a dualistic model of high-grade serous carcinoma: BRCA mutation status, histology, and tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:287–93.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000369.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ducie J, Dao F, Considine M, et al. Molecular analysis of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma with and without associated serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2017;8:990.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01217-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kwon JS, Tinker A, Pansegrau G, et al. Prophylactic salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy as an alternative for BRCA mutation carriers. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:14–24.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182783c2f.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh N, Gilks CB, Hirshowitz L, et al. Adopting a uniform approach to site assignment in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: the time has come. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016;35:230–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moss EL, Evans T, Pearmain P, et al. Should all cases of high-grade serous ovarian, tubal, and primary peritoneal carcinomas be reclassified as tubo-ovarian serous carcinoma? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1201–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prat J, Young RH. Letter to the editor on “Should All Cases of High-Grade Serous Ovarian, Tubal, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinomas Be Reclassified as Tubo-Ovarian Serous Carcinoma?” Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26:226–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000617.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kaspersen P, Buhl L, Møller BR. Fallopian tube papilloma in a patient with primary sterility. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67:93–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gisser SD. Obstructing fallopian tube papilloma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1986;5:179–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Choi SM, Kang WD, Choi HS, et al. Serous borderline tumor of the fallopian tube. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2014;57:334.  https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2014.57.4.334.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zheng W, Wolf S, Kramer EE, et al. Borderline papillary serous tumour of the fallopian tube. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:30–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Im HS, Kim JO, Lee SJ, et al. Borderline mucinous tumor arising in a paratubal cyst: a case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;32:206–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Salamon C, Tornos C, Chi DS. Borderline endometrioid tumor arising in a paratubal cyst: a case report. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97:263–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.12.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prat J. Abridged republication of FIGO’s staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Cancer. 2015;121:3452–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Riska A, Sund R, Pukkala E, et al. Parity, tubal sterilization, hysterectomy and risk of primary fallopian tube carcinoma in Finland, 1975–2004. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:1351–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Koskela-Niska V, Riska A, Lyytinen H, et al. Primary fallopian tube carcinoma risk in users of postmenopausal hormone therapy in Finland. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:241–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.045.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Inal MM, Hanhan M, PIlanci B, Tinar S. Fallopian tube malignancies: experience of Social Security Agency Aegean Maternity Hospital. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14:595–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1048-891X.2004.14404.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sieh W, Köbel M, Longacre TA, et al. Hormone-receptor expression and ovarian cancer survival: an ovarian tumor tissue analysis consortium study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:853–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70253-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K, et al. Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Al-Hussaini M, Stockman A, Foster H, McCluggage WG. WT-1 assists in distinguishing ovarian from uterine serous carcinoma and in distinguishing between serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. Histopathology. 2004;44:109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shen Y-M, Xie Y-P, Xu L, et al. Malignant mixed müllerian tumor of the fallopian tube: report of two cases and review of literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281:1023–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1331-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wheal A, Jenkins R, Mikami Y, et al. Primary mucinous carcinoma of the fallopian tube. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2017;36:393–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Malak M, Klam S. Primary fallopian tube clear cell adenocarcinoma in pregnancy: case presentation and review of the literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:183243.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/183243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rabczyński J, Ziółkowski P. Primary endometrioid carcinoma of fallopian tube. Clinicomorphologic study. Pathol Oncol Res. 1999;5:61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Muto MG, Lage JM, Berkowitz RS, et al. Gestational trophoblastic disease of the fallopian tube. J Reprod Med. 1991;36:57–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gallardo A, Prat J. Mullerian adenosarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:278–88.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318181a80d.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Atere-Roberts N, Angelopoulos L, Ghataura S, Vijayanand R. Cavernous haemangioma of the fallopian tube presenting as appendicitis in an adolescent girl. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 2010;30:70–1.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903315645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Katiyar R, Patne SCU, Bharti S, Jain M. Capillary hemangioma of the fallopian tube. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2016;10:QD01–2.  https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/16774.7570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zagouri F, Dimopoulos M-A, Thomakos N, et al. Sarcomas of the fallopian tube: disentangling a rare entity. Onkologie. 2011;34:132–8.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000324792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jacoby AF, Fuller AF, Thor AD, Muntz HG. Primary leiomyosarcoma of the fallopian tube. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:404–7.  https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1993.1312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ueda T, Emoto M, Fukuoka M, et al. Primary leiomyosarcoma of the fallopian tube. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010;15:206–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-010-0027-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mitsuhashi A, Nagai Y, Suzuka K, et al. Primary synovial sarcoma in fallopian tube: case report and literature review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007;26:34–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000225841.13880.3a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Oishi H, Moriyama S, Kotera K, et al. First case of liposarcoma arising from the fallopian tube: case report and review of the literature. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008;34:713–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00913.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pickel H, Thalhammer M. Chondrosarcoma of the fallopian tube. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1971;31:1243–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Buchwalter CL, Jenison EL, Fromm M, et al. Pure embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma of the fallopian tube. Gynecol Oncol. 1997;67:95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1997.4833.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ferguson SE, Gerald W, Barakat RR, et al. Clinicopathologic features of rhabdomyosarcoma of gynecologic origin in adults. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:382–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000213352.87885.75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shahin NA, Alqaisy A, Zheng W. Primary alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma of fallopian tube masquerading as a unilateral adnexal mass: A case report and literature review. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2015;58:521.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0377-4929.168884.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sangoi AR, McKenney JK, Schwartz EJ, et al. Adenomatoid tumors of the female and male genital tracts: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of 44 cases. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1228–35.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2009.90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Terada T. An immunohistochemical study of adenomatoid tumors of the uterus and fallopian tube. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012;20:173–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mizutani T, Yamamuro O, Kato N, et al. Renal transplantation-related risk factors for the development of uterine adenomatoid tumors. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2016;17:96–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2016.05.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stewart CJR, Leung YC, Whitehouse A. Fallopian tube metastases of non-gynaecological origin: a series of 20 cases emphasizing patterns of involvement including intra-epithelial spread. Histopathology. 2012;60:E106–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04194.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rabban JT, Vohra P, Zaloudek CJ. Nongynecologic metastases to fallopian tube mucosa. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:35–51.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Na K, Kim H-S. Clinicopathological characteristics of fallopian tube metastases from primary endometrial, cervical, and nongynecological malignancies: a single institutional experience. Virchows Arch. 2017;471:363–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-017-2186-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kommoss F, Faruqi A, Gilks CB, et al. Uterine serous carcinomas frequently metastasize to the fallopian tube and can mimic serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:161–70.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000757.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Eckert MA, Pan S, Hernandez KM, et al. Genomics of ovarian cancer progression reveals diverse metastatic trajectories including intraepithelial metastasis to the fallopian tube. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1342–51.  https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kato N, Sugawara M, Maeda K, et al. Pyloric gland metaplasia/differentiation in multiple organ systems in a patient with Peutz-Jegher’s syndrome. Pathol Int. 2011;61:369–72.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1827.2011.02670.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Seidman JD. Mucinous lesions of the fallopian tube. A report of seven cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:1205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Jang MI, Sung J-Y, Kim J-Y, Kim H-S. Clinicopathological characteristics of metaplastic papillary tumor of the fallopian tube. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:3693–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Saffos RO, Rhatigan RM, Scully RE. Metaplastic papillary tumor of the fallopian tube—a distinctive lesion of pregnancy. Am J Clin Pathol. 1980;74:232–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wolsky RJ, Price MA, Zaloudek CJ, Rabban JT. Mucosal proliferations in completely examined fallopian tubes accompanying ovarian low-grade serous tumors: Neoplastic precursor lesions or normal variants of benign mucosa? Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2018;37:262–74.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cheung AN, Young RH, Scully RE. Pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia of the fallopian tube associated with salpingitis. A report of 14 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:1125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Majmudar B, Henderson PH, Semple E. Salpingitis isthmica nodosa: a high-risk factor for tubal pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;62:73–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Jenkins CS, Williams SR, Schmidt GE. Salpingitis isthmica nodosa: a review of the literature, discussion of clinical significance, and consideration of patient management. Fertil Steril. 1993;60:599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chappell CA, Wiesenfeld HC. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of severe pelvic inflammatory disease and tuboovarian abscess. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55:893–903.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182714681.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Evans DT. Actinomyces israelii in the female genital tract: a review. Genitourin Med. 1993;69:54–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Smith G, Hoover S, Klotz SA, Sobonya R. Abdominal and pelvic coccidioidomycosis. Am J Med Sci. 2011;341:308–11.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182058736.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Erhan Y, Zekioğlu O, Ozdemir N, Sen S. Unilateral salpingitis due to enterobius vermicularis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;19:188–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hacker NF, Gambone JC, Hobel CJ. Hacker & Moore’s essentials of obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2015.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Walker JJ. Ectopic pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50:89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e31802f4f79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ankum WM, Mol BW, Van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:1093–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Li C, Zhao W-H, Zhu Q, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a multi-center case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:187.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0613-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Green LK, Kott ML. Histopathologic findings in ectopic tubal pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1989;8:255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Baergen RN, Rutgers J, Young RH. Extrauterine lesions of intermediate trophoblast. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2003;22:362–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000092132.88121.d1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Felix AS, Brinton LA, McMeekin DS, et al. Relationships of tubal ligation to endometrial carcinoma stage and mortality in the NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group 210 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv158.
  100. 100.
    Jenkins S, Olive DL, Haney AF. Endometriosis: pathogenetic implications of the anatomic distribution. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;67:335–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Seidman JD, Sherman ME, Bell KA, et al. Salpingitis, salpingoliths, and serous tumors of the ovaries: is there a connection? Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002;21:101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mutter GL, Prat J. Pathology of the female reproductive tract. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2014.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Casey RK, Damle LF, Gomez-Lobo V. Isolated fallopian tube torsion in pediatric and adolescent females: a retrospective review of 15 cases at a single institution. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2013;26:189–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2013.02.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ouldamer L, Caille A, Body G. Fallopian tube prolapse after hysterectomy: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76543.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076543.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Goyal LD, Maheshwari S, Kaur S, Kaur H. Prolapse of fallopian tube through abdominal wound after caesarean section mimicking scar endometriosis: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2015;9:280.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-015-0769-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Song YS, Kang JS, Park MH. Fallopian tube prolapse misdiagnosed as vault granulation tissue: a report of three cases. Pathol Res Pract. 2005;201:819–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2005.09.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Nasir N, Desai M, Marshall J, Gupta N. Prolapsed fallopian tube: cytological findings in a ThinPrep liquid based cytology vaginal vault sample. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41:146–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.21742.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Honoré LH, O’Hara KE. Ovarian hilus cell heterotopia. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;53:461–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Lewis JD. Hilus-cell hyperplasia of ovaries and tubes; report of a case. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:728–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hirschowitz L, Salmons N, Ganesan R. Ovarian hilus cell heterotopia. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011;30:46–52.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181eaa1ff.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Horn L-C, Angermann K, Hentschel B, et al. Frequency of papillary tubal hyperplasia (PTH), salpingoliths and transition from adenoma to borderline ovarian tumors (BOT): a systematic analysis of 74 BOT with different histologic types. Pathol Res Pract. 2017;213:305–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2017.02.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Fadare O, Khabele D. Salpingo-oophorectomy specimens for endometrial cancer staging: a comparative analysis of representative sampling versus whole tissue processing. Hum Pathol. 2013;44:643–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2012.07.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Mahe E, Tang S, Deb P, et al. Do deeper sections increase the frequency of detection of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) in the “sectioning and extensively examining the FIMbriated end” (SEE-FIM) protocol? Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2013;32:353–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e318264ae09.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Rabban JT, Krasik E, Chen L-M, et al. Multistep level sections to detect occult fallopian tube carcinoma in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies from women with BRCA mutations: implications for defining an optimal specimen dissection protocol. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1878–85.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181bc6059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Gariepy AM. Revisiting essure—toward safe and effective sterilization. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:e17.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1510514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press & Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.  2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyStanford University Medical CenterStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations