Cited by 19Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsMetastasis and carcinoma case studies

Malignant transformation of abdominal wall endometriosis with lymph node metastasis

Open access
Fargas Fàbregas, Francesc, Cusidó Guimferrer, Maite, Tresserra Casas, Francesc, Baulies Caballero, Sonia, Fábregas Xauradó, Rafael·2014·Gynecologic Oncology Case Reports

Abstract

•A simple endometriosis can result in malignancy pathology, as a neoplasia.•Wall-abdominal tumors and soft tissue as a possible differential diagnosis of abdominal wall endometriosis•Preperitoneal node-metastasis as malignancy of endometriosis in previous cesarean scar.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gynor.2013.12.003

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some authors describe other prognostic factors such as the size of the mass at the time of diagnosis, which could play a role in a better outcome, especially if the masses range between 4 and 9 cm.

    “Some authors describe other prognostic factors such as the size of the mass at the time of diagnosis, which could play a role in a better outcome, especially if the masses range between 4 and 9 cm [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74].”

    From Malignancy in Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: Is There a Way to Avoid It? A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Discussion identifies an endometriotic lesion diameter greater than 9 cm as a risk factor for malignant transformation, so it does treat size as relevant. It does not say that masses measuring 4–9 cm at diagnosis have better outcomes; the Case presentation describes a roughly 6 cm mass, and the Surgical procedure reports only that this patient was disease-free after 48 months. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 19

Authors
Fargas Fàbregas, F., Cusidó Guimferrer, M., Tresserra Casas, F., Baulies Caballero, S., & Fábregas Xauradó, R.
Venue
Gynecologic Oncology Case Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-04
Volume
8
Pages
10-13
ISSN
2211-338X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W10753025
Cited by
19
References
10
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gynecologic Oncology Case Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Metastasis and carcinoma case studies
Keywords
abdominal wall endometriosis, malignant transformation, lymph node metastasis, endometriosis-associated malignancy, cesarean section scar, soft tissue lesions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review