Evaluation of gestational trophoblastic diseases; 10 years’ experience in tertiary obstetric care center

Objective: The aim of this study is to review the demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). Material and Methods: Data of patients with histopathologically confirmed diagnosis of GTD between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed from hospital records. Results: There were 94 partial hydatidiform mole (PHM), 61 complete hydatidiform mole (CHM), 23 exaggerated placental site (EPS), and 22 placental site nodule (PSN) cases with the prevalence of 0.18%, 0.12%, 0.045%, and 0.039%, respectively. As gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, 1 invasive mole, 1 choriocarcinoma, and 1 placental site trophoblastic tumor were detected. While the PHM group and the CHM group were similar in terms of obstetric history, the mean age and body mass index were lower in the CHM group (p=0.04, p=0.00, respectively). Mean platelet volume and plateletcrit levels were lower and neutrophil lymphocyte ratio was higher in CHM compared to PHM (p=0.00 p=0.02, p=0.00, respectively). At diagnosis, the serum β-hCG level was higher and the gestational week was earlier, and the rate of detecting molar pregnancy by ultrasound was higher in the CHM group than in the PHM group (p=0.00, p=0.02, p=0.00, respectively). The need for a second evacuation and methotrexate chemotherapy were higher in the CHM group than in the PHM (p=0.02, p=0.00, respectively). While molar pregnancy and EPS coexistence were diagnosed in four patients, no such coexistence was found in PSN. Conclusion: Compared to PHM, CHM, which is more common in young people, requires more second evacuation or methotrexate treatment, and ultrasonography seems to be more effective in diagnosis. Unlike PSN, EPS can be seen with molar pregnancies and is rarely a cause of postpartum hemorrhage.

PDF

___

1. Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Fisher RA, Golfier F, Massuger L, Sessa C. Gestational trophoblastic disease: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi39–50.
2. Shen D, Liao X, Liu Y, Wang H, Yu Y. Clinicopathological study of intermediate trophoblastic non-tumor lesions: Exaggerated placental site and placental site nodule. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 2004;33(5):441–4.
3. Ngan HY, Seckl MJ, Berkowitz RS, Xiang Y, Golfier F, Sekharan PK, et al. Update on the diagnosis and management of gestational trophoblastic disease. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2018;143(Suppl 2):79–85.
4. Ning F, Hou H, Morse AN, Lash GE. Understanding and management of gestational trophoblastic disease. F1000Res 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev–428.
5. Eysbouts YK, Bulten J, Ottevanger PB, Thomas CM, Ten Kate-Booij MJ, van Herwaarden AE, et al. Trends in incidence for gestational trophoblastic disease over the last 20 years in a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140(1):70–5.
6. Savage P, Williams J, Wong SL, Short D, Casalboni S, Catalano K, et al. The demographics of molar pregnancies in England and Wales from 2000-2009. J Reprod Med 2010;55(7–8):341–5.
7. Lybol C, Thomas CM, Bulten J, van Dijck JA, Sweep FC, Massuger LF. Increase in the incidence of gestational trophoblastic disease in The Netherlands. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121(2):334–8.
8. Altman AD, Bentley B, Murray S, Bentley JR. Maternal age-related rates of gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(2):244– 50.
9. Gockley AA, Melamed A, Joseph NT, Clapp M, Sun SY, Goldstein DP, et al. The effect of adolescence and advanced maternal age on the incidence of complete and partial molar pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140(3):470–3.
10. Eagles N, Sebire NJ, Short D, Savage PM, Seckl MJ, Fisher RA. Risk of recurrent molar pregnancies following complete and partial hydatidiform moles. Hum Reprod 2015;30(9):2055–63.
11. Gadducci A, Lanfredini N, Cosio S. Reproductive outcomes after hydatidiform mole and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015;31(9):673–8.
12. Eskicioğlu F, Artunç Ülkümen B, Çalık E. Complete blood count parameters may have a role in diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease? Pak J Med Sci 1969;31(3):667–71.
13. Abide Yayla C, Özkaya E, Yenidede I, Eser A, Ergen EB, Tayyar AT, et al. Predictive value of some hematological parameters for non-invasive and invasive mole pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018;31(3):271–7.
14. Zhang L, Xie Y, Zhan L. The potential value of red blood cell distribution width in patients with invasive hydatidiform mole. J Clin Lab Anal 2019;33(4):e22846.
15. Soylu Karapınar O, Şilfeler DB, Dolapçıoğlu K, Kurt RK, Beyazıt A. The effect of molar pregnancies on platelet parameters. J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;36(7):912–5.
16. Ghassemzadeh S, Kang M. Hydatidiform mole. In: Stat Pearls. Treasure Island, FL: Stat Pearls Publishing; 2021.
17. Memtsa M, Johns J, Jurkovic D, Ross JA, Sebire NJ, Jauniaux E. Diagnosis and outcome of hydatidiform moles in missed-miscarriage: A cohort- study, systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;253:206–12.
18. Kirk E, Papageorghiou AT, Condous G, Bottomley C, Bourne T. The accuracy of first trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of hydatidiform mole. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(1):70–5.
19. Shih IM, Kurman RJ. The pathology of intermediate trophoblastic tumors and tumor-like lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2001;20(1):31–47.
20. Liu G, Yuan B, Wang Y. Exaggerated placental site leading to postpartum hemorrhage: A case report. J Reprod Med 2013;58(9–10):448–50.
21. Takebayashi A, Kimura F, Yamanaka A, Takahashi A, Tsuji S, Ono T, et al. Exaggerated placental site, consisting of implantation site intermediate trophoblasts, causes massive postpartum uterine hemorrhage: Case report and literature review. Tohoku J Exp Med 2014;234(1):77–82.
22. Ozdemir O, Sari M, Selimova V, Ilgin B, Atalay C. A case report of complete mole with co-existent exaggerated placental site reaction and review of the literature. Niger Med J 2014;55(2):180–2.
23. Pramanick A, Hwang WS, Mathur M. Placental site nodule (PSN): an uncommon diagnosis with a common presentation. BMJ Case Rep 2014;2014:bcr2013203086.