Tumor-Like Trophoblastic Conditions

Part of the Current Clinical Pathology book series (CCPATH)


Two well-defined reactive conditions of intermediate trophoblast are placental site nodule (PSN) and exaggerated placental site (EPS) reaction (see Table 1.1 from Chap. 1). PSN is a proliferative lesion of the intermediate trophoblast at the chorionic laeve whereas EPS is a reactive process consisting of the intermediate trophoblast at implantation site. Clinicopathologically, both lesions are incidental findings and are associated with either a prior pregnancy or a concurrent gestation. They are microscopic and generally not detectable by imaging studies. Histologically and immunohistochemically, PSN and EPS have histological and cytological features simulating their neoplastic counterparts, that is, epithelioid trophoblastic tumor (ETT) and placental site trophoblastic tumor (PSTT), respectively (Int J Gynecol Pathol 20(1):31–47, 2001). Recognition by pathologists of both lesions is important as they may simulate various trophoblastic tumors and even non-trophoblastic neoplasms, such as squamous cell carcinoma.


PSN EPS Differential diagnosis 


  1. 1.
    Shih IM, Kurman RJ. The pathology of intermediate trophoblastic tumors and tumor-like lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2001;20(1):31–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carinelli SG, Vendola N, Benzi G. Placental site nodules. A report of 17 cases (abstract). Pathol Res Pract. 1989;185:30.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young RH, Kurman RJ, Scully RE. Placental site nodules and plaques. A clinicopathologic analysis of 20 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1990;14(11):1001–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee KC, Chan JK. Placental site nodule. Histopathology. 1990;16(2):193–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams JW. Regeneration of the uterine mucosa after delivery, with special reference to the placental site. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1931;22:664–96.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swan RW, Woodruff JD. Retained products of conception. Histologic viability of placental polyps. Obstet Gynecol. 1969;34(4):506–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shih IM, Seidman JD, Kurman RJ. Placental site ­nodule and characterization of distinctive types of intermediate trophoblast. Hum Pathol. 1999;30(6): 687–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santos LD, Fernando SS, Yong JL, Killingsworth MC, Wu XJ, Kennerson AR. Placental site nodules and plaques: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of 25 cases with ultrastructural findings. Pathology. 1999;31(4):328–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huettner PC, Gersell DJ. Placental site nodule: a ­clinicopathologic study of 38 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1994;13(3):191–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nayar R, Snell J, Silverberg SG, Lage JM. Placental site nodule occurring in a fallopian tube. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(11):1243–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campello TR, Fittipaldi H, O’Valle F, Carvia RE, Nogales FF. Extrauterine (tubal) placental site nodule. Histopathology. 1998;32(6):562–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al-Hussaini M, Lioe TF, McCluggage WG. Placental site nodule of the ovary. Histopathology. 2002;41(5): 471–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsang WY, Chum NP, Tang SK, Tse CC, Chan JK. Mallory’s bodies in placental site nodule. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993;117(5):547–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mao TL, Seidman JD, Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M. Cyclin E and p16 immunoreactivity in epithelioid trophoblastic tumor–an aid in differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(9):1105–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mao TL, Kurman RJ, Jeng YM, Huang W, Shih Ie M. HSD3B1 as a novel trophoblast-associated marker that assists in the differential diagnosis of trophoblastic tumors and tumorlike lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(2):236–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsai HW, Lin CP, Chou CY, Li CF, Chow NH, Shih IM, et al. Placental site nodule transformed into a malignant epithelioid trophoblastic tumour with pelvic lymph node and lung metastasis. Histopathology. 2008;53(5):601–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ewing J. Chorioma. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1910; 10:26.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor ES, Droegemueller W. Choriocarcinoma, chorioadenoma destruens, and syncytial endometritis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1962;83:958–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Acosta-Sison H. Is syncytial endometritis (syncytioma) always benign? J Philipp Med Assoc. 1963; 39:720–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Villasanta U. A re-evaluation of trophoblastic diseases: syncytial endometritis, hydatidiform mole (benign and malignant) and choriocarcinoma. Indian Pract. 1966;19(5):329–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nigam S, Dass R. Exaggerated placental site reaction mimicking choriocarcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(6):587–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Micheletti G. A case of deep chorial infiltration of the myometrium (syncytial endometritis) as probable cause of uterine dyskinesia. Riv Ostet Ginecol Prat. 1960;42:829–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurman RJ, Scully RE, Norris HJ. Trophoblastic pseudotumor of the uterus: an exaggerated form of “syncytial endometritis” simulating a malignant tumor. Cancer. 1976;38(3):1214–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen X, Shi Y, Xie X. The clinical and pathological characteristics of exaggerated placental site. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 1998;33(6):352–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young RH, Kurman RJ, Scully RE. Proliferations and tumors of intermediate trophoblast of the placental site. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1988;5(2):223–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wells M. The pathology of gestational trophoblastic disease: recent advances. Pathology. 2007;39(1):88–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tavassoli F, Peter D. World Health Organization: tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singer G, Kurman RJ, McMaster MT, Shih Ie M. HLA-G immunoreactivity is specific for intermediate trophoblast in gestational trophoblastic disease and can serve as a useful marker in differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(7):914–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shih IM. The role of CD146 (Mel-CAM) in biology and pathology. J Pathol. 1999;189(1):4–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeasmin S, Nakayama K, Katagiri A, Ishikawa M, Iida K, Nakayama N, et al. Exaggerated placental site mimicking placental site trophoblastic tumor: case report and literature review. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2010;31(5):586–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shih IM, Kurman RJ. Ki-67 labeling index in the differential diagnosis of exaggerated placental site, placental site trophoblastic tumor, and choriocarcinoma: a double immunohistochemical staining technique using Ki-67 and Mel-CAM antibodies. Hum Pathol. 1998;29(1):27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hui P, Martel M, Parkash V. Gestational trophoblastic diseases: recent advances in histopathologic diagnosis and related genetic aspects. Adv Anat Pathol. 2005;12(3):116–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buza N, Hui P. Gestational trophoblastic disease: histopathological diagnosis in the molecular era. Diagn Histopathol. 2010;16(11):526–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dotto J, Hui P. Lack of genetic association between exaggerated placental site reaction and placental site trophoblastic tumor. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2008;27(4): 562–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bentley RC. Pathology of gestational trophoblastic disease. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;46(3):513–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations