OBJECTIVE: We present a case of papillary thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii treated erroneously as ovarian adenocarcinoma for more than 3 years. METHODS: We report clinical, surgical, laboratory, and imaging findings of the study patient and review the relevant literature. RESULTS: A 64-year-old woman was treated for ovarian adenocarcinoma for more than 3 years before it was determined that she likely had papillary thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii. This is the first reported case of thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii in a patient with a history of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Possible etiologies include residual ovarian tissue after oophorectomy, ectopic thyroid, or metastatic thyroid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to include struma ovarii and thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii in the differential diagnosis, even with a history of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. This case emphasizes the importance of effective communication among the pathologist, oncologist, and surgeon to ensure timely initiation of appropriate therapy and reduced patient morbidity.
OBJECTIVE: We present a case of papillary thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii treated erroneously as ovarian adenocarcinoma for more than 3 years. METHODS: We report clinical, surgical, laboratory, and imaging findings of the study patient and review the relevant literature. RESULTS: A 64-year-old woman was treated for ovarian adenocarcinoma for more than 3 years before it was determined that she likely had papillary thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii. This is the first reported case of thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii in a patient with a history of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Possible etiologies include residual ovarian tissue after oophorectomy, ectopic thyroid, or metastatic thyroid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to include struma ovarii and thyroid carcinoma arising from struma ovarii in the differential diagnosis, even with a history of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. This case emphasizes the importance of effective communication among the pathologist, oncologist, and surgeon to ensure timely initiation of appropriate therapy and reduced patient morbidity.