Roman Starikov1, Randi Goldman, Don S Dizon, Stefan Kostadinov, Stephen Carr. 1. From the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Program in Women's Oncology, and the Department of Pathology, Women & Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; the Departments of Obstetrics-Gynecology and Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; and Albany Medical College, Albany, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Placental mesenchymal dysplasia is a rare abnormality characterized by placentomegaly, grapelike cystic vesicles, and villous hyperplasia. The clinical and ultrasonographic presentation may mimic molar pregnancy, provoking incorrect diagnoses and unnecessary therapeutic interventions. CASE: A 36-year-old nulliparous woman presented for prenatal ultrasonography that indicated the presence of one gestational sac containing both fetus and cystic mass, concerning for partial molar pregnancy. Amniocentesis returned a 46,XX karyotype, suggesting a twin gestation with complete mole. The patient was monitored closely and, because of fetal growth restriction, was induced successfully at term and delivered a healthy newborn. Histopathologic findings of the placenta were consistent with placental mesenchymal dysplasia. CONCLUSION: Although placental mesenchymal dysplasia is often confused with molar pregnancy, it is important to consider both in a differential to avoid inappropriate treatments.
BACKGROUND: Placental mesenchymal dysplasia is a rare abnormality characterized by placentomegaly, grapelike cystic vesicles, and villous hyperplasia. The clinical and ultrasonographic presentation may mimic molar pregnancy, provoking incorrect diagnoses and unnecessary therapeutic interventions. CASE: A 36-year-old nulliparous woman presented for prenatal ultrasonography that indicated the presence of one gestational sac containing both fetus and cystic mass, concerning for partial molar pregnancy. Amniocentesis returned a 46,XX karyotype, suggesting a twin gestation with complete mole. The patient was monitored closely and, because of fetal growth restriction, was induced successfully at term and delivered a healthy newborn. Histopathologic findings of the placenta were consistent with placental mesenchymal dysplasia. CONCLUSION: Although placental mesenchymal dysplasia is often confused with molar pregnancy, it is important to consider both in a differential to avoid inappropriate treatments.