Next Article in Journal
Comparative Evaluation of Deep Learning Models for the Classification of Impacted Maxillary Canines on Panoramic Radiographs
Previous Article in Journal
Clinicopathologic Features and Postoperative Outcomes of Parotidectomy: A 16-Year Retrospective Cohort Study from a Tertiary Referral Center
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/diagnostics16020218
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Case Report

Paratubal Leiomyoma Mimicking Ovarian Malignancy: A Case Report and Literature Review

by
Wen-Lin Hsieh
1 and
Dah-Ching Ding
1,2,*
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Tzu Chi University, Hualien 970, Taiwan
2
Institute of Medical Sciences, Tzu Chi University, Hualien 970, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2026, 16(2), 218; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020218
Submission received: 11 December 2025 / Revised: 2 January 2026 / Accepted: 7 January 2026 / Published: 9 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Precision Diagnostics in Gynecologic Health and Disease)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background and Clinical Significance: A paratubal leiomyoma is an exceptionally rare benign smooth muscle tumor arising from paratubal tissue, with only sporadic cases reported in the literature. Case Presentation: We present the case of a 72-year-old postmenopausal woman with intermittent spotting for three months. A pelvic examination revealed a retained intrauterine device, which was removed along with an old sanguineous discharge. A transvaginal ultrasound demonstrated a complex left adnexal mass with calcifications, and computed tomography (CT) confirmed a 7.8 × 5.5 × 4.7 cm lesion suggestive of an ovarian malignancy. Tumor markers showed mildly elevated CA-125 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. Endometrial sampling using a hysteroscopy and curettage revealed hyperplasia without atypia. The patient underwent a total laparoscopic hysterectomy with a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A diagnostic laparoscopy revealed a well-circumscribed solid mass arising from the mesosalpinx, separate from the ovary and fallopian tube and consistent with a paratubal mass, which was successfully excised laparoscopically. Frozen sections suggested a fibroma, and the final pathology confirmed a paratubal leiomyoma with hyalinization, accompanied by adenomyosis and simple endometrial hyperplasia. The patient recovered uneventfully, and the 6-month follow-up showed no recurrence. This case highlights the diagnostic challenge of differentiating paratubal leiomyomas from ovarian tumors based on imaging alone. Histopathological examination is essential for confirmation. Conclusions: Awareness of paratubal leiomyomas as a differential diagnosis may prevent overtreatment and guide the appropriate surgical management of postmenopausal women presenting with adnexal masses.

1. Introduction

A paratubal leiomyoma is an exceptionally rare benign smooth muscle tumor arising from the paratubal tissue. The literature on this condition is limited to case reports and small case series, with no population-based studies or epidemiological data quantifying their prevalence [1,2]. Most of the available data have focused on parasitic leiomyomas or paratubal cysts, rather than paratubal leiomyomas. Paratubal cysts constitute approximately 7–10% of adnexal masses in pediatric and adolescent populations; however, this prevalence does not apply to paratubal leiomyomas, which are distinct entities and are much less common [3,4]. Consequently, the prevalence of paratubal leiomyomas has not yet been established in the medical literature.
Paratubal leiomyomas are most often diagnosed intraoperatively or by histopathological examination after the surgical excision of an adnexal mass. Imaging modalities, such as transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound, may reveal a solid, well-circumscribed adnexal mass separated from the ovary and uterus; however, preoperative differentiation from other adnexal masses (e.g., ovarian fibromas and paraovarian cysts) is challenging because of overlapping sonographic features and the rarity of the entity [5].
The current guidelines for evaluating adnexal masses emphasize that serum CA-125 may aid in risk stratification, but has a limited specificity, particularly in premenopausal women, and should be interpreted in conjunction with imaging findings and the clinical context [6,7].
A definitive diagnosis requires the histopathological confirmation of a leiomyoma composed of interlacing bundles of smooth muscle cells without atypia, necrosis, or significant mitotic activity, with clear anatomic separation from the uterus and ovary [8].
We report the case of a 72-year-old woman with a paratubal leiomyoma mimicking an ovarian malignancy who underwent a laparoscopic total hysterectomy and a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (LTH + BSO).

2. Case

A 72-year-old postmenopausal woman presented with intermittent spotting that had persisted for three months.
A pelvic examination revealed an old intrauterine device (IUD) string, and the removal of the retained IUD resulted in the release of an old sanguineous discharge.
Initial transvaginal ultrasonography revealed a complex solid mass with focal calcifications in the left adnexal region, suggesting a teratoma or ovarian malignancy. The uterus appeared enlarged, and the endometrium was markedly thickened. Subsequent computed tomography confirmed a left adnexal mass measuring 7.8 × 5.5 × 4.7 cm.
Tumor markers showed mildly elevated levels of CA-125 (35.4 U/mL; normal value: 35) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (4.1 U/mL; normal value: 3.5), with normal levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) and CA19-9.
A Pap smear revealed ASC-US (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), and high-risk HPV (human papillomavirus) testing was negative.
After progesterone withdrawal, transvaginal ultrasonography revealed persistent endometrial thickening with intrauterine fluid.
A hysteroscopy with dilation and curettage was performed, and a pathological examination demonstrated endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. The patient was then admitted for further evaluation and management.
The patient’s past medical history was significant only for hypertension under regular treatment. She had experienced menopause at 45 years of age. The obstetric history included two term spontaneous vaginal deliveries.
Imaging supported the initial suspicion of an adnexal tumor. Ultrasonography revealed a complex mass with calcifications (Figure 1), while computed tomography (CT) confirmed a 7.8 cm solid hypovascular tumor with calcified flecks in the left adnexal region and the rightward displacement of the uterus (Figure 2). Follow-up endometrial evaluations, including a hysteroscopy and curettage, revealed endometrial hyperplasia without atypia.
The patient subsequently underwent a laparoscopic total hysterectomy with a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (LTH + BSO). Laparoscopic exploration revealed a well-circumscribed, solid mass located in the left paratubal region, distinct from the uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes (Figure 3A). The uterus demonstrated a normal contour without evidence of fundal or subserosal myomas (Figure 3B). Both the fallopian tubes and ovaries appeared grossly normal. The mass was connected by a narrow pedicle to the paratubal soft tissue and showed no direct attachment to the uterine serosa or tubal wall. The complete excision of the lesion was achieved without breaching the uterine or tubal structures (Figure 3B).
The estimated intraoperative blood loss was minimal, and the patient’s postoperative course was uneventful. A frozen-section analysis of the left ovary suggested a fibroma, and the final pathology was SMA (+), calretinin (−), and inhibin (−), confirming a paratubal leiomyoma with hyalinization accompanied by adenomyosis and simple endometrial hyperplasia. The patient was discharged in stable condition, with arrangements for outpatient follow-up.
Microscopically, the resected mass consisted of benign spindle cells with extensive hyalinization. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for smooth muscle actin and negative for calretinin and inhibin, which supported the diagnosis of leiomyoma with hyalinization. Masson’s trichrome staining further highlighted the presence of hyalinized regions.
At the 6-month follow-up visit, the vaginal stump appeared clean, although a small amount of white discharge was noted. A transvaginal ultrasound demonstrated a postoperative anatomy consistent with a hysterectomy and BSO, with no uterus or ovaries and no evidence of pelvic ascites.

3. Discussion

3.1. Previous Case Report

A literature review revealed that fallopian tube leiomyomas are exceedingly rare, with the published reports generally limited to isolated case descriptions. Fallopian tube leiomyomas may arise in any segment of the fallopian tube, most commonly in the isthmus [8]. They are typically solitary and small at the time of diagnosis [8]. Owing to the absence of characteristic early symptoms or signs, fallopian tube leiomyomas are frequently overlooked or incidentally detected during imaging or surgery [8]. Fallopian tube leiomyomas originate from the smooth muscle layer of the tubal wall, whereas paratubal leiomyomas arise from adjacent mesenchymal or smooth muscle tissues of the paratubal structures, such as the mesosalpinx, without the direct involvement of the fallopian tube itself. Previous reports have mostly described fallopian tube leiomyomas. Yang et al. (2007) documented a primary tubal leiomyoma with characteristic ultrasound findings [9]. Li et al. (2018) highlighted MED12 mutations in adnexal leiomyomas, suggesting a molecular basis similar to that of their uterine counterparts [10]. Additional reports include those by Misao et al. (2000) [11] and Joshi et al. (2019) [12], with the latter notable for coexistence with an ectopic pregnancy. Sharma et al. (2016) described a large cellular leiomyoma in a broad ligament that mimicked an ovarian tumor [13]. Sun et al. (2020) reported a lipoleiomyoma with degenerative changes [14]. Recently, Wu et al. (2024) presented a massive cystic variant that caused significant abdominal distension [8]. Compared with these previous reports, our case involved an older postmenopausal woman with a solid paratubal mass mimicking an ovarian malignancy, which was histologically confirmed as a leiomyoma with hyalinization without the involvement of the fallopian tube smooth muscle. This summary highlights the variable presentations, imaging features, and pathologies of tubal leiomyomas, underscoring the diagnostic challenges and the importance of histopathological confirmation (Table 1).

3.2. Differential Diagnosis of Fallopian Pathology

3.2.1. Benign Tumors of the Fallopian Tube

Benign tumors of the fallopian tube constitute the least frequently encountered group of tubal neoplasms [15]. Their true incidence remains difficult to determine because of the scarcity of documented cases and the frequent misclassification of adnexal lesions originating from the ovaries [1,2]. Paratubal or paraovarian leiomyomas are extremely rare and are believed to arise from smooth muscle cells within the paratubal tissue or mesosalpinx [16]. Other smooth muscle tumors, including tubal leiomyomas and angioleiomyomas, have been reported, but they remain anecdotal in the literature [17]. Stromal and mesenchymal lesions such as fibromas, thecomas, and lipoleiomyomas are similar, but may appear as solid adnexal masses during ultrasound evaluation, potentially triggering concern for an ovarian fibroma or malignancy [18]. Benign epithelial tumors such as serous or mucinous cystadenomas, papillomas, or adenofibromas of tubal origin have also been described, but represent a very small proportion of adnexal masses [19]. Tumor-like lesions, including Walthard cell nests [20], endosalpingiosis [21], or paratubal cysts, often mimic neoplasms radiologically or macroscopically [22]. However, they are usually asymptomatic and are frequently identified incidentally during surgery or a histopathological examination. Hydatid cysts of Morgagni, one of the most common paratubal cystic lesions, may cause adnexal fullness or torsion, but rarely exhibit solid components [23]. The diagnostic challenge lies in differentiating these benign tumors from ovarian lesions preoperatively, because transvaginal ultrasonography often lacks the resolution necessary to reliably determine the precise origin of an adnexal mass, and the fallopian tube is frequently difficult to visualize in postmenopausal patients [5]. In clinical practice, benign tubal tumors are typically discovered intraoperatively when an adnexal mass is removed under suspicion of ovarian pathology [24]. Accordingly, a definitive diagnosis depends on histopathology demonstrating smooth muscle bundles, stromal composition, or epithelial features without atypia or malignant transformation [25]. Awareness of benign tubal tumors is important for making a clinical differential diagnosis to avoid excessive surgical interventions, especially in older women or those seeking fertility preservation.
In our case, immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed SMA (+), calretinin (−), and inhibin (−), which were compatible with leiomyomas. SMA positivity supports a smooth muscle origin, which is characteristic of leiomyomas [26]. In contrast, calretinin and inhibin are commonly expressed in sex cord stromal and mesothelial tumors; thus, their absence helps exclude ovarian stromal neoplasms, such as thecomas or fibromas, as well as mesothelial lesions [27]. Immunohistochemistry is valuable for distinguishing paratubal leiomyomas from other adnexal tumors, with a profile of SMA positivity, calretinin negativity, and inhibin negativity supporting a smooth muscle origin and confirming a leiomyoma.

3.2.2. Primary Malignant Tumors of the Fallopian Tube

Primary malignant tumors of the fallopian tube are rare, accounting for less than 1% of gynecologic malignancies [24]. However, their clinical relevance has increased owing to emerging evidence linking high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) to the distal fallopian tube’s fimbrial epithelium [24]. HGSC is the most common primary tubal malignancy, whereas low-grade serous carcinoma, endometrioid carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and serous borderline tumors have been documented, but are significantly less frequent [28]. Non-epithelial malignancies, such as leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, or malignant mixed Müllerian tumors, are exceedingly rare and pose significant diagnostic difficulties because their presentation overlaps with ovarian or uterine malignancies [29]. Clinically, fallopian tube carcinomas often present with nonspecific symptoms such as pelvic pain, abnormal uterine bleeding, vaginal discharge, or an adnexal mass similar to ovarian cancer [30]. The classic triad of fallopian tube carcinomas—intermittent serosanguineous discharge, pelvic pain, and an adnexal mass—is infrequently observed in practice [31]. Imaging findings using ultrasonography or computed tomography typically reveal a complex adnexal mass, solid components, or papillary projections. However, these characteristics are not sufficiently specific to distinguish primary tubal cancer from ovarian neoplasms [32]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may offer better tissue characterization; however, even advanced imaging modalities may not reliably identify the tubal origin preoperatively [33]. Tumor markers such as CA-125 are often elevated, particularly in HGSC, but remain nonspecific [34]. Therefore, a definitive diagnosis relies on postoperative pathological criteria, including the demonstration of intraepithelial carcinoma within the tubal epithelium and a dominant tumor focus within the tube rather than the ovary or endometrium [35]. The recognition that many high-grade serous ovarian cancers originate from the fallopian tube has reshaped our understanding of pelvic serous carcinogenesis, emphasizing the importance of fimbrial sampling and SEE-FIM protocol examinations in surgical pathology [36]. An improved awareness and the early recognition of tubal carcinoma can influence surgical management, staging, and the prognosis, highlighting the need to consider fallopian tube malignancies when postmenopausal adnexal masses display aggressive or complex features.

3.2.3. Secondary (Metastatic) Tumors to the Fallopian Tube

Secondary or metastatic tumors involving the fallopian tube are more common than primary tubal malignancies [37]. This condition represents a crucial component of the differential diagnosis when evaluating adnexal masses with solid characteristics. Metastasis may occur through direct extension, transtubal implantation, hematogenous dissemination, or lymphatic spread [38]. Ovarian serous carcinomas frequently involve the fallopian tube [39]. Endometrial carcinoma may extend into the tube through direct mucosal spread or intraluminal migration [38]. Cervical adenocarcinoma metastasis to the fallopian tube is less common, but may be present in advanced disease [40]. Outside of the gynecologic tract, breast carcinoma, particularly invasive lobular carcinoma, has a predilection for metastasis to Müllerian structures, including the tubes and ovaries [41]. Gastrointestinal cancers such as colorectal adenocarcinoma, gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma (Krukenberg-type metastasis), or appendiceal mucinous tumors may also spread to the fallopian tube and form tumor nodules or mucin-filled lesions that clinically and radiographically resemble ovarian tumors [42]. Metastatic disease tends to present bilaterally more often than primary tumors and may be associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis, ascites, or elevated tumor marker levels [43]. Histopathology plays an essential role in the diagnosis and is particularly valuable for distinguishing metastatic lesions from primary tubal carcinoma using markers such as PAX8, WT-1, the CK7/CK20 profile, and the ER/PR receptor status [44,45], as well as organ-specific markers such as CDX2 for tumors of colorectal origin [46] or mammaglobin/GCDFP-15 for tumors of breast origin [47]. Recognizing metastatic spread is critical for determining the appropriate treatment, as management strategies differ substantially between primary and secondary tumors. Metastatic tumors must be considered in postmenopausal women presenting with a large solid adnexal mass, especially those with elevated tumor markers or evidence of systemic disease. Ultimately, a thorough clinical evaluation combined with a meticulous pathological examination ensures an accurate diagnosis, prevents misclassification, and guides optimal clinical decision-making in patients presenting with fallopian tube tumors (Table 2).

3.2.4. Role of Tumor Markers in Diagnoses and Evaluation

Tumor markers are often used as adjunct tools in the evaluation of adnexal masses to estimate the likelihood of malignancy [48]. However, these methods lack specificity and cannot be used to independently establish a diagnosis. CA-125 is the most commonly used marker of ovarian and tubal pathology [34]. Increased levels are frequently associated with epithelial ovarian cancer [49]. Mild elevation may also be observed in benign conditions such as leiomyomas, endometriosis, or inflammation [50]. The median CA-125 levels typically range from 53 to 413 U/mL in type I ovarian cancer and from 395 to 1340 U/mL in type II ovarian cancer [34]. CEA levels are typically associated with gastrointestinal malignancies and mucinous ovarian tumors [51]. The preoperative serum CEA levels were elevated (>5.0 ng/mL) in 17.5% of patients (10/57), with a median level of 9.6 ng/mL (range, 5.4–111.7 ng/mL) in patients with mucinous ovarian cancer [52]. The SCC antigen and CA19-9 may aid in assessing squamous or mucinous neoplasms, respectively [51,53]. In our case, CA-125 and CEA were only mildly elevated (CA-125 35.4 U/mL, CEA 4.1 ng/mL), while SCC and CA19-9 remained within normal limits—findings that neither confirmed malignancy nor excluded benign disease. Our results highlight that tumor markers primarily serve as supportive indicators and should be interpreted cautiously in the context of clinical presentation and imaging, with a definitive diagnosis ultimately relying on a histopathological examination.

3.3. Image Diagnosis

3.3.1. Ultrasound

Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound are first-line imaging modalities for evaluating fallopian tube lesions, including paratubal leiomyomas and other adnexal masses [5,54,55]. The American College of Radiology recommends ultrasound as the initial and most appropriate test for suspected adnexal masses, given its superior performance, safety, and cost-effectiveness compared to other modalities [54].
The diagnostic approach involves a systematic assessment of the mass location, size, morphology (solid, cystic, or mixed), and relationship with the ovary and uterus [56]. The use of grayscale and color Doppler imaging to evaluate vascularity helps differentiate benign from malignant lesions. A high color flow and irregular solid components increase the suspicion of malignancy [54]. Standardized risk stratification systems, such as the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules and the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), are used to categorize the risk of malignancy and inform management decisions [33,57]. The IOTA Simple Rules and the O-RADS are validated tools for risk assessment, with the O-RADS providing a five-tiered system for follow-up recommendations [5].
The IOTA Simple Rules system provides a preoperative ultrasound-based method for classifying adnexal tumors, utilizing five sonographic features indicative of benignity (B-features) and five suggestive of malignancy (M-features) [57,58] (Table 3). Tumors are categorized as benign, malignant, or inconclusive when both B and M features are present. B-features include a unilocular cyst, solid components of <7 mm, the presence of acoustic shadows, a smooth multilocular mass of <100 mm, and no detectable blood flow on Doppler imaging (color score 1). M-features include an irregular solid tumor, ascites, ≥4 papillary projections, an irregular multilocular solid mass of ≥100 mm, and a very strong Doppler flow (color score 4). Our case showed a B1 feature (unilocular cyst).
The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) is a standardized ultrasound-based risk stratification framework developed by the American College of Radiology that classifies adnexal masses and guides clinical management [59,60]. It categorizes lesions into six levels based on the morphology, a solid or cystic composition, septations, papillary projections, the Doppler flow, and other sonographic characteristics (Table 4): O-RADS 0 (incomplete evaluation), O-RADS 1 (normal ovary), O-RADS 2 (almost certainly benign; <1% risk), O-RADS 3 (low risk; 1–<10%), O-RADS 4 (intermediate risk; 10–<50%), and O-RADS 5 (high risk of malignancy; ≥50%). The system integrates pattern recognition with a management algorithm, recommending follow-up or surgery based on the risk level, menopausal status, and imaging features. The benign descriptors include simple unilocular cysts and classic hemorrhagic or dermoid cysts, whereas malignant features include irregular solid masses, papillary projections, a strong vascularity, and ascites. The O-RADS improves the diagnostic consistency among clinicians, reduces unnecessary surgery for benign masses, and ensures timely referral for suspicious lesions. It serves as an important tool in the interpretation of adnexal masses, complementing the IOTA Simple Rules and enhancing preoperative decision-making [59]. Our case met the criteria of being solid with a smooth contour of any size and with no flow, which indicates a low risk of ovarian cancer.
Specifically, in paratubal leiomyomas, ultrasound may reveal a well-circumscribed, solid, hypoechoic mass that is adjacent to, but separate from, the ovary and uterus, as demonstrated in our case. In this case, several small calcified spots were observed. A previous study also reported variable calcification patterns in uterine leiomyomas [61]. However, distinguishing paratubal leiomyomas from other solid adnexal masses (e.g., ovarian fibromas and paraovarian cysts) is challenging, and a definitive diagnosis requires a histopathological examination [56,62]. Characteristic sonographic features (e.g., tubular, cystic, or complex masses) and the clinical context aid in diagnosing other fallopian tube lesions, such as a hydrosalpinx, endometriosis, or neoplasms [62]. When ultrasound findings are indeterminate, MRI may be considered for further characterization [5].

3.3.2. CT Scan

Computed tomography (CT) is not typically the primary tool for diagnosing paratubal leiomyomas. In our case, there was a solid, hypovascular tumor with calcified flecks in the left adnexal region and the rightward displacement of the uterus. A previous study demonstrated that intratumoral calcification on CT imaging is a key marker for distinguishing benign from malignant epigastric tumors with a high specificity [63].
CT scans are primarily reserved for specific clinical scenarios, such as acute pelvic pain when the diagnosis is unclear, evaluating complications (e.g., abscess formation), or determining the staging of known malignancies [5,56,64]. CT can identify adnexal masses, hydrosalpinges, pyosalpinges, tubo-ovarian abscesses, and features of isolated fallopian tube torsion. However, its ability to distinguish fallopian tube lesions from ovarian or other adnexal pathologies remains limited. CT findings are often nonspecific, and fallopian tube neoplasms may mimic ovarian carcinomas or other pelvic masses [32,65]. In emergency settings, CT may help identify features such as a U- or C-shaped hydrosalpinx or an extraovarian cyst adjacent to a soft-tissue mass, which can support the diagnosis of isolated fallopian tube torsion [65].

3.3.3. MRI

Compared with ultrasound, which is the first-line modality owing to its accessibility, safety, and cost-effectiveness, MRI is reserved for cases in which ultrasound cannot confidently determine the origin or nature of a lesion. MRI is especially valuable for distinguishing solid from complex cystic masses, identifying hemorrhagic or fatty components, and clarifying the origin of a mass (ovarian vs. tubal vs. other pelvic structures) [66,67,68,69]. For example, MRI can reliably identify hydrosalpinges, hematosalpinges, and tubal neoplasms based on characteristic signal patterns and morphology, and it can differentiate these from ovarian lesions [70,71]. MRI demonstrates a higher specificity and positive predictive value for malignancies than ultrasound or CT in cases with indeterminate findings [5]. While ultrasonography remains the initial test, MRI can reclassify indeterminate lesions, often avoiding unnecessary surgery for benign findings and expediting oncologic referrals for malignant ones [66,72]. In contrast, CT is less sensitive and specific for characterizing adnexal masses and is primarily used for staging known malignancies or assessing complications, not for making an initial diagnosis [5,73].

3.3.4. Positron Emission Tomography–Computed Tomography (PET-CT)

PET-CT is highly sensitive for identifying metabolically active lesions, such as primary fallopian tube carcinoma and metastatic implants, and it can detect sites of disease that may be missed on conventional imaging, as demonstrated in cases where PET-CT identifies lesions that are not visible on MRI or CT [74,75]. However, PET-CT is limited in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses and is not recommended for the initial evaluation or routine diagnosis of benign fallopian tube pathologies [76]. PET/CT is reserved for oncologic indications, such as staging, restaging, and detecting recurrence, and is not suitable for the initial diagnosis or characterization of most fallopian tube lesions [32].
Table 5 provides an overview of the diagnostic imaging approaches used to evaluate fallopian tube and paratubal lesions.

4. Conclusions

This case illustrates the diagnostic complexity of a paratubal leiomyoma, an exceedingly rare adnexal tumor that can closely mimic an ovarian malignancy on clinical evaluation and imaging. Despite conducting a thorough assessment using ultrasound, CT, tumor markers, and hysteroscopic sampling, making a preoperative diagnosis of this condition remains uncertain, reflecting the limitations of the current imaging modalities in differentiating uncommon extraovarian smooth muscle tumors from more typical ovarian or tubal pathologies. A definitive diagnosis was achieved through surgical excision and histopathologic confirmation, which demonstrated a hyalinized leiomyoma arising from the paratubal region. This case underscores the importance of maintaining a broad differential diagnosis when evaluating solid adnexal masses, particularly in postmenopausal women, and highlights the crucial role of histopathology in establishing the final diagnosis. Although rare, awareness of paratubal leiomyomas may help avoid overtreatment and guide appropriate surgical planning when adnexal masses present with features suggestive of malignancy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.-C.D.; methodology, W.-L.H.; software, D.-C.D.; validation, D.-C.D. and W.-L.H.; formal analysis, D.-C.D. and W.-L.H.; interpretation of data, D.-C.D. and W.-L.H.; resources, D.-C.D.; data curation, D.-C.D. and W.-L.H.; writing, D.-C.D. and W.-L.H.; original draft preparation, D.-C.D. and W.-L.H.; review and editing, D.-C.D.; supervision, D.-C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and ethical review and approval were waived for the single case report.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing does not apply to this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BSOBilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
CA-125Cancer antigen 125
CEACarcinoembryonic antigen
CTComputed tomography
HGSCHigh-grade serous carcinoma
HPVHuman papillomavirus
IHCImmunohistochemistry
IOTAInternational Ovarian Tumor Analysis
IUDIntrauterine device
LTHLaparoscopic total hysterectomy
MRIMagnetic resonance imaging
O-RADSOvarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System
PET-CTPositron emission tomography–computed tomography
SCC antigenSquamous cell carcinoma antigen
SMASmooth muscle actin

References

  1. Nezhat, C.; Kho, K. Iatrogenic Myomas: New Class of Myomas? J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2010, 17, 544–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kho, K.A.; Nezhat, C. Parasitic Myomas. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 114, 611–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kiseli, M.; Caglar, G.S.; Cengiz, S.D.; Karadag, D.; Yılmaz, M.B. Clinical Diagnosis and Complications of Paratubal Cysts: Review of the Literature and Report of Uncommon Presentations. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012, 285, 1563–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Muolokwu, E.; Sanchez, J.; Bercaw, J.L.; Sangi-Haghpeykar, H.; Banszek, T.; Brandt, M.L.; Dietrich, J.E. The Incidence and Surgical Management of Paratubal Cysts in a Pediatric and Adolescent Population. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2011, 46, 2161–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sisodia, R.C.; Del Carmen, M.G. Lesions of the Ovary and Fallopian Tube. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Friedrich, L.; Meyer, R.; Levin, G. Management of Adnexal Mass: A Comparison of Five National Guidelines. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2021, 265, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Levin, G.; Herzberg, S.; Dior, U.P.; Shushan, A.; Gilad, R.; Benshushan, A.; Rottenstreich, A. The Predictive Role of CA-125 in the Management of Tubo-Ovarian Abscess. A Retrospective Study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019, 238, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, J.; Wang, X.; Ye, N.; Yan, X.; Zeng, X.; Nie, F. Fallopian Tube Leiomyoma Presenting as a Huge Abdominopelvic Cystic Mass: A Case Report and Literature Review. Curr. Med. Imaging Rev. 2024, 20, e15734056286949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, C.-C.; Wen, K.-C.; Chen, P.; Wang, P.-H. Primary Leiomyoma of the Fallopian Tube: Preoperative Ultrasound Findings. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2007, 70, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, Z.; Maeda, D.; Kudo-Asabe, Y.; Tamura, D.; Nanjo, H.; Hayashi, A.; Ikemura, M.; Fukayama, M.; Goto, A. MED12 Is Frequently Mutated in Ovarian and Other Adnexal Leiomyomas. Hum. Pathol. 2018, 81, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Misao, R.; Niwa, K.; Iwagaki, S.; Shimokawa, K.; Tamaya, T. Leiomyoma of the Fallopian Tube. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2000, 49, 279–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Joshi, U.; Kiwalkar, S.; Joshi, R. Coexistence of a Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy and Tubal Leiomyoma. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019, 26, 350–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharma, P.; Zaheer, S.; Yadav, A.K.; Mandal, A.K. Massive Broad Ligament Cellular Leiomyoma with Cystic Change: A Diagnostic Dilemma. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016, 10, ED01–ED02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, D.; Yang, P.; Liu, Y.; Yu, G. Fallopian Tube Lipoleiomyoma with Degeneration: A Case Report and Literature Review. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2020, 13, 2163–2168. [Google Scholar]
  15. Smorgick, N.; Herman, A.; Schneider, D.; Halperin, R.; Pansky, M. Paraovarian Cysts of Neoplastic Origin Are Underreported. JSLS 2009, 13, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  16. Butureanu, T.A.; Apetrei, A.-M.; Pavaleanu, I.; Haliciu, A.-M.; Socolov, R.; Balan, R. Extremely Rare Case of a Giant Paratubal Cyst, Coexisting with a Mucinous Cystadenoma, Surgically Treated through Laparoscopy-A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Reports 2025, 8, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pham, T.; Peterson, J.M.; Hasan, H.; Gomez, M. Uterine Angioleiomyoma: Clinical and Histopathologic Differentiation of an Underrecognized Mimicker of Uterine Leiomyoma. Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 2025, 33, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Allo, G. Mesenchymal Tumors, Pathology of the Ovary. In Encyclopedia of Pathology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 222–230. ISBN 9783030973773. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rai, B.; Swathi, B. Laparoscopic Management of Rare Benign Serous-Cystadenofibroma of Fallopian Tube—A Case Report and Short Review of Literature. EC Gynecol. 2021, 10, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jo, U.; Sung, C.O.; Kim, K.-R. Walthard Cell Nests/transitional Cell Metaplasia in Distal Fallopian Tubes and Pelvic Peritoneum Derived from Reserve Cells. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2025, 44, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Burla, L.; Kalaitzopoulos, D.R.; Mrozek, A.; Eberhard, M.; Samartzis, N. Intraoperative Appearance of Endosalpingiosis: A Single-Center Experience of Laparoscopic Findings and Systematic Review of Literature. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ermler, M.; Ward, K.R.; Tominna, M.A.; Brahmamdam, P. Multiple Bilateral Paratubal Cysts and Recurrent Bilateral Fallopian Tube Torsion in a Premenarchal Female: A Case Report. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2024, 109, 102865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abd-el-Maeboud, K.H. Hydatid Cyst of Morgagni: Any Impact on Fertility? J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 1997, 23, 427–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rexhepi, M.; Trajkovska, E.; Ismaili, H.; Besimi, F.; Rufati, N. Primary Fallopian Tube Carcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2017, 5, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rani, E.; Kaur, M. Rare and Incidental Lesions of Fallopian Tube—A Case Series Constituting 5 Cases. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2025, 15, 74–78. [Google Scholar]
  26. Miettinen, M. Smooth Muscle Tumors of Soft Tissue and Non-Uterine Viscera: Biology and Prognosis. Mod. Pathol. 2014, 27, S17–S29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cathro, H.P.; Stoler, M.H. The Utility of Calretinin, Inhibin, and WT1 Immunohistochemical Staining in the Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Tumors. Hum. Pathol. 2005, 36, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, J.; Park, E.Y.; Kim, O.; Schilder, J.M.; Coffey, D.M.; Cho, C.-H.; Bast, R.C., Jr. Cell Origins of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer. Cancers 2018, 10, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Imachi, M.; Tsukamoto, N.; Shigematsu, T.; Watanabe, T.; Uehira, K.; Amada, S.; Umezu, T.; Nakano, H. Malignant Mixed Müllerian Tumor of the Fallopian Tube: Report of Two Cases and Review of Literature. Gynecol. Oncol. 1992, 47, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Eken, M.; Temizkan, O.; Kaygusuz, E.I.; Herkiloğlu, D.; Çöğendez, E.; Karateke, A. Primary Carcinoma of the Fallopian Tubes: Analysis of Sixteen Patients. J. Turk. Soc. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 12, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vyas, M.N.; Rai, S.; Manjeera, L.; Shetty, D. Bilateral Primary Fallopian Tube Carcinoma with the Classical Clinical Features: A Case Report. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2013, 7, 726–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Iacobellis, G.; Leggio, A.; Salzillo, C.; Imparato, A.; Marzullo, A. The Imaging of Primary Fallopian Tube Carcinoma: A Literature Review. Cancers 2025, 17, 2985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hong, M.-K.; Ding, D.-C. Early Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of the Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Charkhchi, P.; Cybulski, C.; Gronwald, J.; Wong, F.O.; Narod, S.A.; Akbari, M.R. CA125 and Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 2020, 12, 3730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Visvanathan, K.; Vang, R.; Shaw, P.; Gross, A.; Soslow, R.; Parkash, V.; Shih, I.-M.; Kurman, R.J. Diagnosis of Serous Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma Based on Morphologic and Immunohistochemical Features: A Reproducibility Study. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2011, 35, 1766–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Koc, N.; Ayas, S.; Arinkan, S.A. Comparison of the Classical Method and SEE-FIM Protocol in Detecting Microscopic Lesions in Fallopian Tubes with Gynecological Lesions. J. Pathol. Transl. Med. 2018, 52, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karpathiou, G.; Chauleur, C.; Hathroubi, S.; Peoc’h, M. Secondary Tumors of the Gynecologic Tract: A Clinicopathologic Analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2019, 38, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stewart, C.J.R.; Doherty, D.A.; Havlat, M.; Koay, M.H.E.; Leung, Y.C.; Naran, A.; O’Brien, D.; Ruba, S.; Salfinger, S.; Tan, J. Transtubal Spread of Endometrial Carcinoma: Correlation of Intra-Luminal Tumour Cells with Tumour Grade, Peritoneal Fluid Cytology, and Extra-Uterine Metastasis. Pathology 2013, 45, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Labidi-Galy, S.I.; Papp, E.; Hallberg, D.; Niknafs, N.; Adleff, V.; Noe, M.; Bhattacharya, R.; Novak, M.; Jones, S.; Phallen, J.; et al. High Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinomas Originate in the Fallopian Tube. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aljhdali, H.; Balega, J.; Williams, A.; Ganesan, R. Isolated Tubal Metastasis from an Incidental HPV-Associated Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Presented as an Adnexal Mass: A Case Report. Case Rep. Womens Health 2023, 39, e00532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Chuang, A.-Y.; Watkins, J.C.; Young, R.H.; Lerwill, M.F. Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast Metastatic to the Ovary: A Clinicopathologic Study of 38 Cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2022, 46, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Efetov, S.K.; Cao, Y.; Zou, J.; Dorogov, A.Y.; Paramonova, N.B.; Tsoy, L.V.; Droshneva, I.V.; Fatyanova, A.S. Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer to the Uterine Body and Fallopian Tube: Case Report and Literature Review. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2024, 2024, rjae400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cortés-Guiral, D.; Hübner, M.; Alyami, M.; Bhatt, A.; Ceelen, W.; Glehen, O.; Lordick, F.; Ramsay, R.; Sgarbura, O.; Van Der Speeten, K.; et al. Primary and Metastatic Peritoneal Surface Malignancies. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2021, 7, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Katcher, A.H.; Greenman, M.P.; Roychoudhury, S.; Goldberg, G.L. Utilization of Immunohistochemistry in Gynecologic Tumors: An Expert Review. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep. 2024, 56, 101550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hsieh, W.-L.; Ding, D.-C. Management of Retroperitoneal High-Grade Serous Carcinoma of Unknown Origin: A Case Report. World J. Clin. Cases 2024, 12, 1190–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Werling, R.W.; Yaziji, H.; Bacchi, C.E.; Gown, A.M. CDX2, a Highly Sensitive and Specific Marker of Adenocarcinomas of Intestinal Origin: An Immunohistochemical Survey of 476 Primary and Metastatic Carcinomas. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2003, 27, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rakhshanı, N.; Daryakar, A. Are Mammaglobin and GCDFP-15 Sensitive Markers for Diagnosis of Metastatic Basal-like Triple Negative Breast Carcinomas? Turk Patoloji Derg. 2014, 30, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sagi-Dain, L.; Lavie, O.; Auslander, R.; Sagi, S. CA 19-9 in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass: Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Review of the Literature. Int. J. Biol. Markers 2015, 30, e333–e340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Smith, A.J.B.; Gleason, E.; Kadiyala, S.; Wang, X.; Howell, E.A.; McCarthy, A.M. Cancer Antigen 125 Levels at Time of Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis by Race and Ethnicity. JAMA Netw. Open 2025, 8, e251292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rao, S.; Kapurubandara, S.; Anpalagan, A. Elevated CA 125 in a CASE of Leaking Endometrioma. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 2018, 2385048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Lertkhachonsuk, A.-A.; Buranawongtrakoon, S.; Lekskul, N.; Rermluk, N.; Wee-Stekly, W.-W.; Charakorn, C. Serum CA19-9, CA-125 and CEA as Tumor Markers for Mucinous Ovarian Tumors. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2020, 46, 2287–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lin, W.; Cao, D.; Shen, K. Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Serum CEA in Primary Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Cancer Manag. Res. 2018, 10, 6913–6920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zhu, H. Squamous Cell Carcinoma Antigen: Clinical Application and Research Status. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Patel-Lippmann, K.K.; Wasnik, A.P.; Akin, E.A.; Andreotti, R.F.; Ascher, S.M.; Brook, O.R.; Eskander, R.N.; Feldman, M.K.; Jones, L.P.; Martino, M.A.; et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass, No Acute Symptoms: 2023 Update. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2024, 21, S79–S99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khouri, O.R.; Monteagudo, A.; Timor-Tritsch, I.E. Tubal Disease and Impersonators/masqueraders. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 60, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Revzin, M.V.; Moshiri, M.; Katz, D.S.; Pellerito, J.S.; Mankowski Gettle, L.; Menias, C.O. Imaging Evaluation of Fallopian Tubes and Related Disease: A Primer for Radiologists. Radiographics 2020, 40, 1473–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Solanki, V.; Singh, P.; Sharma, C.; Ghuman, N.; Sureka, B.; Shekhar, S.; Gothwal, M.; Yadav, G. Predicting Malignancy in Adnexal Masses by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis-Simple Rules. J. Midlife. Health 2020, 11, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Timmerman, D.; Ameye, L.; Fischerova, D.; Epstein, E.; Melis, G.B.; Guerriero, S.; Van Holsbeke, C.; Savelli, L.; Fruscio, R.; Lissoni, A.A.; et al. Simple Ultrasound Rules to Distinguish between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses before Surgery: Prospective Validation by IOTA Group. BMJ 2010, 341, c6839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vara, J.; Manzour, N.; Chacón, E.; López-Picazo, A.; Linares, M.; Pascual, M.Á.; Guerriero, S.; Alcázar, J.L. Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2022, 14, 3151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Andreotti, R.F.; Timmerman, D.; Strachowski, L.M.; Froyman, W.; Benacerraf, B.R.; Bennett, G.L.; Bourne, T.; Brown, D.L.; Coleman, B.G.; Frates, M.C.; et al. O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology 2020, 294, 168–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tantipalakorn, C.; Khunamornpong, S.; Sirilert, S.; Tongsong, T. Popcorn Appearance of Severely Calcified Uterine Leiomyoma: Image-Pathological Correlation. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. 62; Sokalska, A.; Timmerman, D.; Testa, A.C.; Van Holsbeke, C.; Lissoni, A.A.; Leone, F.P.G.; Jurkovic, D.; Valentin, L. Diagnostic Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasound Examination for Assigning a Specific Diagnosis to Adnexal Masses. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 34, 462–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. An, Y.; Wei, P.; Liu, L.; Yimier, R.; Peng, X.; Liu, D.; Yu, D. Intratumoral Calcification on CT Assists in Distinguishing Benign and Malignant Upper Abdomen Neoplasm. Postgrad. Med. J. 2025, 101, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rezvani, M.; Shaaban, A.M. Fallopian Tube Disease in the Nonpregnant Patient. Radiographics 2011, 31, 527–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Coutureau, J.; Mandoul, C.; Curros-Doyon, F.; Millet, I.; Taourel, P. Recognizing the Features of Isolated Fallopian Tube Torsion on CT and MRI and Interobserver Agreement: A Cross-Sectional Study. Eur. J. Radiol. 2022, 157, 110607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sadowski, E.A.; Stein, E.B.; Thomassin-Naggara, I.; Rockall, A.; Nougaret, S.; Reinhold, C.; Maturen, K.E. O-RADS MRI after Initial Ultrasound for Adnexal Lesions: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2023, 220, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ghattamaneni, S.; Bhuskute, N.M.; Weston, M.J.; Spencer, J.A. Discriminative MRI Features of Fallopian Tube Masses. Clin. Radiol. 2009, 64, 815–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sadowski, E.A.; Maturen, K.E.; Rockall, A.; Reinhold, C.; Addley, H.; Jha, P.; Bharwani, N.; Thomassin-Naggara, I. Ovary: MRI Characterisation and O-RADS MRI. Br. J. Radiol. 2021, 94, 20210157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nunes Pereira, P.; Françoise Derchain, S.; Yoshida, A.; Hoelz de Oliveira Barros, R.; Menezes Jales, R.; Sarian, L.O. Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Sequence and CA125/CEA Ratio Can Be Used as Add-on Tools to Ultrasound for the Differentiation of Ovarian from Non-Ovarian Pelvic Masses. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0283212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Outwater, E.K.; Siegelman, E.S.; Chiowanich, P.; Kilger, A.M.; Dunton, C.J.; Talerman, A. Dilated Fallopian Tubes: MR Imaging Characteristics. Radiology 1998, 208, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wall, D.J.; Reinhold, C.; Akin, E.A.; Ascher, S.M.; Brook, O.R.; Dassel, M.; Henrichsen, T.L.; Learman, L.A.; Maturen, K.E.; Patlas, M.N.; et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Infertility. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2020, 17, S113–S124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Dirrichs, T.; Bauerschlag, D.; Maass, N.; Kuhl, C.K.; Schrading, S. Impact of Multiparametric MRI (mMRI) on the Therapeutic Management of Adnexal Masses Detected with Transvaginal Ultrasound (TVUS): An Interdisciplinary Management Approach. Acad. Radiol. 2022, 29, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mohaghegh, P.; Rockall, A.G. Imaging Strategy for Early Ovarian Cancer: Characterization of Adnexal Masses with Conventional and Advanced Imaging Techniques. Radiographics 2012, 32, 1751–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Dai, N.; Deng, S.; Yang, Y.; Sang, S. 18-F Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography Findings of Bilateral Primary Fallopian Tube Carcinoma and Metastasis to the Uterus: A Case Report and Literature Review. J. Int. Med. Res. 2022, 50, 3000605221118678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Makhija, S.; Howden, N.; Edwards, R.; Kelley, J.; Townsend, D.W.; Meltzer, C.C. Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography Imaging for the Detection of Recurrent Ovarian and Fallopian Tube Carcinoma: A Retrospective Review. Gynecol. Oncol. 2002, 85, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Sharma, J.B.; Karmakar, D.; Kumar, R.; Shamim, S.A.; Kumar, S.; Singh, N.; Roy, K.K.; Reddy, R.M. Comparison of PET/CT with Other Imaging Modalities in Women with Genital Tuberculosis. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2012, 118, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 16 00218 g001
Figure 1. Transvaginal ultrasound of the left adnexal tumor (sagittal view). 1: Longitudinal diameter, +: Transverse diameter.
Figure 1. Transvaginal ultrasound of the left adnexal tumor (sagittal view). 1: Longitudinal diameter, +: Transverse diameter.
Diagnostics 16 00218 g001
Diagnostics 16 00218 g002
Figure 2. Computer tomography of the left adnexal tumor. (A) Axial view, (B) sagittal view, and (C) coronal view. U: uterus, M: leiomyoma, and B: bladder.
Figure 2. Computer tomography of the left adnexal tumor. (A) Axial view, (B) sagittal view, and (C) coronal view. U: uterus, M: leiomyoma, and B: bladder.
Diagnostics 16 00218 g002
Diagnostics 16 00218 g003
Figure 3. Laparoscopic view of surgical fields. (A) Before resection of left adnexa. (B) After resection of left adnexa: Ov: ovary. Tube: fallopian tube. Tumor: paratubal leiomyoma. Lt: left, Rt: right. s/p: status post.
Figure 3. Laparoscopic view of surgical fields. (A) Before resection of left adnexa. (B) After resection of left adnexa: Ov: ovary. Tube: fallopian tube. Tumor: paratubal leiomyoma. Lt: left, Rt: right. s/p: status post.
Diagnostics 16 00218 g003
Table 1. Reported cases of fallopian tube/paratubal leiomyomas in the literature.
Table 1. Reported cases of fallopian tube/paratubal leiomyomas in the literature.
Author/YearPatient AgePresentationTumor Location/SizeImaging FeaturesTreatmentPathology/Notes
Yang et al., 2007 [9]Not specifiedPelvic massFallopian tube; size not statedUltrasound showed a solid adnexal mass suggestive of a leiomyomaSurgical excisionPrimary tubal leiomyoma confirmed
Li et al., 2018 [10]Multiple casesVariedAdnexal leiomyomasMolecular study of MED12 mutationSurgical specimens reviewedMED12 mutation is frequently detected in ovarian/adnexal leiomyomas
Misao et al., 2000 [11]Not specifiedNot specifiedFallopian tube leiomyomaNot reportedSurgical removalRare tubal leiomyoma reported
Joshi et al., 2019 [12]Reproductive ageEctopic pregnancy with a tubal massFallopian tubal leiomyoma associated with ectopic pregnancyNot specifiedSalpingectomy with pregnancy removalCoexistence of ectopic gestation and leiomyoma
Sharma et al., 2016 [13]Not specifiedBroad ligament massLarge cellular leiomyoma with cystic changeMimicked an ovarian tumor radiologicallySurgical resectionDiagnostic challenge due to cystic degeneration
Sun et al., 2020 [14]45 yearsAbdominal discomfortFallopian tube lipoleiomyoma with degenerationMass with fatty componentsMass excisionLipoleiomyoma confirmed histologically
Wu et al., 2024 [8]49 yearsHuge abdominopelvic cystic massFallopian tube origin; very largeCystic appearance mimicked an ovarian tumorSurgery performedLarge leiomyoma confirmed
Present case72 yearsPostmenopausal spotting, incidental IUD findingLeft paratubal region; 9.0 × 4.54 × 6.37 cmSolid mass with calcification on US/CT, mimicking an ovarian malignancyLTH + BSO; uneventful recoveryLeiomyoma with hyalinization, SMA (+), calretinin (−), inhibin (−)
US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; LTH + BSO, laparoscopic total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
Table 2. Summary of differential diagnoses of fallopian tube tumors.
Table 2. Summary of differential diagnoses of fallopian tube tumors.
CategoryKey ExamplesTypical CharacteristicsDiagnostic Consideration
Benign tumorsParatubal/tubal leiomyoma, fibroma, serous/mucinous cystadenoma, papillomaUsually well-circumscribed solid or cystic mass, often incidentalOften mimics ovarian mass; diagnosis confirmed postoperatively
Primary malignant tumorsHGSC, LGSC, endometrioid, clear cell, mucinous carcinoma, leiomyosarcoma, MMMTImaging similar to ovarian cancer; CA-125 may be elevatedRequires histological proof of tubal origin; SEE-FIM recommended
Secondary (metastatic) tumorsFrom the ovary, endometrium, breast, colorectal/appendixMore common than primary; often bilateral or associated with peritoneal diseaseIHC critical to identify primary site; alters management strategy
HGSC, high-grade serous carcinoma; LGSC = low-grade serous carcinoma; MMMT = malignant mixed Müllerian tumor; SEE-FIM = sectioning and extensively examining the FIMbria protocol; IHC, immunohistochemistry.
Table 3. International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules for adnexal mass classification.
Table 3. International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules for adnexal mass classification.
CategoryFeature TypeUltrasound Criteria
B-features (benign indicators)B1Unilocular cyst
 B2Presence of solid components of <7 mm
 B3Presence of acoustic shadows
 B4Smooth multilocular tumor <100 mm in largest diameter
 B5No detectable blood flow on color Doppler (color score of 1)
M-features (malignant indicators)M1Irregular solid tumor
 M2Presence of ascites
 M3≥4 papillary projections
 M4Irregular multilocular solid tumor of ≥100 mm
 M5Very strong blood flow on Doppler (color score of 4)
Table 4. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RAD) categories.
Table 4. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RAD) categories.
O-RADSFeaturesRisk
1Follicles <3 cm, corpus luteum (thickened wall <3 cm)Normal ovary (0% likelihood of malignancy)
2Simple cyst (>3–<10 cm in premenopausal women, <10 cm in postmenopausal women); not simple, unilocular cyst with smooth inner margin <10 cm; classic benign lesions (hemorrhagic cyst, dermoid cyst, endometrioma, paraovarian cyst, peritoneal inclusion cyst, hydrosalpinx)Almost certainly benign (<1% likelihood of malignancy)
3Unilocular cyst ≥10 cm; typical benign cyst ≥10 cm; unilocular cyst with irregular inner wall (<3 mm); multilocular cyst with smooth inner wall (<10 cm) and low color flow; solid with smooth contour, of any size and with no flowLow risk (1–<10% likelihood of malignancy)
4Multilocular cyst with smooth inner wall, ≥10 cm, no-to-moderate flow; multilocular cyst with smooth inner wall of any size and a very strong flow; multilocular cyst with irregular inner wall or septation of any size and any flow; unilocular cyst with 1–3 papillary projections of any size and any flow; multilocular cyst with solid component of any size and no to mild flow; solid (≥80%) with smooth contour of any size and mild-to-moderate flowIntermediate risk (10–<50% likelihood of malignancy)
5Unilocular cyst with ≥4 papillary projections of any size and any flow; multilocular cyst with solid component of any size and moderate-to-strong flow; solid (≥80%) with smooth contour of any size and a very strong flow; solid (≥80%) with irregular contour of any size and any flow; ascites and peritoneal nodulesHigh risk (≥50% likelihood of malignancy)
Table 5. Summary of imaging modalities for fallopian tube and paratubal lesions.
Table 5. Summary of imaging modalities for fallopian tube and paratubal lesions.
Imaging ModalityAdvantages/RoleKey Diagnostic FeaturesLimitations/Notes
Ultrasound (TVS/TAS)First-line for adnexal evaluation; recommended by ACR; cost-effective and widely availableAssesses mass size, morphology, and vascularity (Doppler); IOTA rules/O-RADS applicable. Paratubal leiomyoma appears as a solid, well-circumscribed, hypoechoic mass separate from the ovary/uterusDifficult to distinguish between ovarian fibromas and paraovarian cysts; operator-dependent; definitive diagnosis requires pathology
CT scanUseful for acute settings, complication evaluations, and malignancy stagingDetects adnexal masses, hydrosalpinges, pyosalpinges, TOAs, and torsion indicators (U-/C-shaped tube)Poor discrimination between tubal vs. ovarian tumors; nonspecific for benign vs. malignant; not preferred for initial diagnosis
MRIBest for characterization of indeterminate masses after US; high specificity for malignancyDifferentiates solid vs. cystic components; identifies hemorrhage/fat; clarifies origin (tubal vs. ovarian)More expensive and less accessible; reserved for uncertain cases; not first-line, despite superior characterization
PET-CTHighly sensitive for metabolically active malignancy, metastasis, and recurrence evaluationsDetects sites missed by CT/MRI; useful for oncologic stagingNot suitable for initial diagnosis of benign lesions; limited ability to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses
TVS/TAS, transvaginal sonography/transabdominal sonography; US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET-CT, positron emission tomography–computed tomography; ACR, American College of Radiology; IOTA, International Ovarian Tumor Analysis; O-RADS, Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System; TOA, tubo-ovarian abscess.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hsieh, W.-L.; Ding, D.-C. Paratubal Leiomyoma Mimicking Ovarian Malignancy: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics 2026, 16, 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020218

AMA Style

Hsieh W-L, Ding D-C. Paratubal Leiomyoma Mimicking Ovarian Malignancy: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics. 2026; 16(2):218. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020218

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hsieh, Wen-Lin, and Dah-Ching Ding. 2026. "Paratubal Leiomyoma Mimicking Ovarian Malignancy: A Case Report and Literature Review" Diagnostics 16, no. 2: 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020218

APA Style

Hsieh, W.-L., & Ding, D.-C. (2026). Paratubal Leiomyoma Mimicking Ovarian Malignancy: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics, 16(2), 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020218

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop