ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Case Report: Pelvic splenosis confused with malignancy-a reminder for differential diagnosis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Splenosis Unmasked: Incidentally Rediscovered in a Patient With Nephrolithiasis and Remote Splenectomy.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Splenosis is a rare, benign disorder that arises after splenic trauma or splenectomy. Because its imaging features are nonspecific and often mimic those of malignant tumors, it is frequently misdiagnosed as malignant. The condition often presents without specific symptoms or elevated tumor markers, further complicating the diagnostic process. Case presentation: A 47-year-old woman with a prior history of splenectomy 20 years earlier after trauma presented with a progressively enlarging pelvic mass. Serial imaging modalities, including magnetic resonance imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and computed tomography, indicated a potential gastrointestinal malignancy, although all tumor markers remained within normal limits. Image-guided percutaneous biopsy was considered but deemed unsuitable due to the complex anatomical location of the dominant mass in the rectouterine pouch, where a safe needle trajectory avoiding bowel and major vessels could not be guaranteed. Exploratory surgery was performed, and intraoperative frozen-section analysis of an approximately 5-cm purple-brown nodule confirmed the diagnosis of splenosis. Histopathological examination with immunohistochemical staining (CD8+, CD68+, CD117-, DOG1-) confirmed the diagnosis of splenosis and excluded malignancies such as gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and carcinoma. Smaller implants located in the omentum and mesentery were preserved. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful, and she expressed both relief and satisfaction with the benign diagnosis as well as the avoidance of unnecessary extensive resection. Conclusion: This case highlights the necessity of considering splenosis in the differential diagnosis of pelvic masses, especially in patients with a history of splenic trauma or splenectomy. A comprehensive evaluation that incorporates clinical history, advanced imaging modalities-including magnetic resonance imaging and ^99mTc-labeled heat-damaged red blood cell scintigraphy-as well as multidisciplinary consultation, can enhance diagnostic accuracy and help prevent overtreatment. Current evidence indicates that asymptomatic splenosis does not necessitate surgical intervention, and precise preoperative recognition is crucial for optimizing patient management.
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.