Evidence Hub

Diagnostic pitfalls in ovarian androgen-secreting (Leydig cell) tumours: case series

Fanta M, Fischerová D, Indrielle-Kelly T, Koliba P, Zdeňková A, Burgetová A, Vrbíková J

Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2019

Abstract

Leydig cell tumours of the ovary are rare and represent a diagnostic challenge not only due to their sporadic incidence but also due to the seemingly normal imaging. We present three cases of pre- and postmenopausal women who were presented with severe clinical signs of hyperandogenism where modern imaging modalities (including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron-emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET-CT)) failed to identify the tumour. Two patients underwent non-expert ultrasound, CT and MRI examination with uniform conclusion that ovaries are of normal appearance. One of the two patients even had a PET-CT performed, which was inconclusive. Our case reports show the importance of examination by specialists with established skills in gynaecologic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the Leydig cell tumours. The most useful diagnostic tool seems to be the combination of age (postmenopause), symptoms (onset of hirsutism and virilisation), high total testosterone plasma values and expert sonography. On ultrasound, these tumours are unilateral, usually small, solid intraovarian nodules of a slightly increased echogenicity in contrast to the surrounding ovarian tissue, delineated by abundant perfusion with an enhanced vascularity. The appropriate setting of the sensitive colour Doppler is crucial for the detection of intraovarian Leydig cell tumour. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? A diagnosis of Leydig…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free