The Japanese Journal of Urology
Online ISSN : 1884-7110
Print ISSN : 0021-5287
ISSN-L : 0021-5287
Case Report
TWO CASES OF LOWER ABDOMINAL TUMORS DIFFICULT TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM URACHAL TUMORS
Hiroya MizusawaTomohiko OguchiTakahisa DomenKoji KoizumiYuji MimuraTetsuichi SaitoHaruaki Kato
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

2014 Volume 105 Issue 1 Pages 17-21

Details
Abstract

(Case 1) A 28-year-old woman visited a local medical doctor, complaining of abdominal pain, urinary frequency and a sense of residual urine. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a lower abdominal extraperitoneal tumor, approximately 5 cm in diameter, adjacent to the bladder dome. It was thought to be a urachal tumor, and she was referred to our hospital. A hard hen's egg-sized mass was palpable in the lower abdomen. Urinary analysis was normal. Cytological examination was also negative. Cystoscopy revealed redness in the bladder dome mucosa. Although the preoperative diagnosis was a urachal cancer, the pathological diagnosis on surgery was desmoids, and tumor excision was performed. No recurrence has been seen for 7 years postoperatively. (Case 2) A 71-year-old man complaining of swelling of the lower abdomen was referred to our department because he was suspected to have a urachal tumor, of about 15 cm in diameter, on computed tomography. A hard infant head-sized mass was palpable in the lower abdomen. Urinary analysis was normal. Cystoscopical examination showed a markedly compressed bladder dome, however, no abnormal findings were seen in the mucosa. Although the preoperative diagnosis was a urachal tumor, the intraoperative pathological diagnosis revealed no malignancy. The mass was connected to the bladder dome, and partial cystectomy was conducted. The final pathological diagnosis was a solitary fibrous tumor. No recurrence has been seen for 5 years postoperatively. Because a urachal tumor is highly malignant, radical cystectomy and urinary diversion might be planned preoperatively. However, care should be taken not to be too invasive, considering the possibility of a benign tumor.

Content from these authors
© 2014 Japanese Urological Association
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top