ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Fulminant peritoneal metastasis of appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma during pregnancy: a case report.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma (AMA) is exceptionally rare, constituting less than 0.5% of all gastrointestinal malignancies and demonstrating an annual incidence of only 1 to 2 cases per million people. Furthermore, the majority of appendiceal adenocarcinomas are diagnosed at an advanced stage (Stage III and IV). A systematic literature review of the past 10 years revealed that only one case of aggressive appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma in pregnancy has been reported. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report presents a rare instance of fulminant peritoneal metastasis of appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma during pregnancy: A 34-year-old obese pregnant woman (BMI 40 kg/m²) initially presented with suppurative appendicitis at 28+ 1 weeks of pregnancy, which was resolved with a temporary clinical remission through conservative treatment with medication. However, the patient subsequently fulminant progression to Stage IV (T4NxM1) at 13 days. The primary tumor of the appendix perforated, leading to peritoneal seeding and metastasis to the ovary. This triggered the development of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the ovary, which exhibited explosive growth. During the procedure, the MDT implemented an epidural-general sequential anesthesia protocol, enabling a seamless transition between cesarean delivery and subsequent radical tumor resection. At the 18-month follow-up, both the mother and infant exhibited positive outcomes with no evidence of tumor recurrence. Although the short-term outcomes are favorable, the initial diagnosis of “suppurative appendicitis” resulted in delayed recognition of the malignant tumor.
conclusionsThis case provides critical insights into the dual paradigm shifts in the diagnosis and management of rare malignant tumors during pregnancy, thereby offering valuable clinical alerts and diagnostic guidance for clinicians. In terms of diagnostic reasoning, it emphasizes that clinicians should critically appraise the conventional diagnosis of “appendicitis” and incorporate rare entities—such as “appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma with ovarian metastasis”—into the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen. This practice is pivotal for avoiding diagnostic delays arising from overreliance on empirical judgments. Additionally, optimizing standardized MDT protocols and striving to enhance the early diagnosis rate of rare malignant tumors represent essential approaches to addressing these complex clinical challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.