Giant fibroepithelial vulvar polyp in a pregnant woman

  1. Carolina Smet 1,
  2. Tatiana Gigante Gomes 2,
  3. Lurdes Silva 1 and
  4. Júlio Matias 2
  1. 1 Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
  2. 2 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carolina Smet; msmet@chlo.min-saude.pt

Publication history

Accepted:09 Oct 2020
First published:11 Jan 2021
Online issue publication:11 Jan 2021

Case reports

Case reports are not necessarily evidence-based in the same way that the other content on BMJ Best Practice is. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice. Please check the date of publication.

Abstract

Fibroepithelial polyps are benign lesions that may appear in the vulvovaginal region. They usually occur in women of reproductive age and tend to grow up to 5 cm, but there are some rare cases in which they grow up to 20 cm. We report a case of a 22-year-old woman in the third trimester of her first pregnancy with spontaneous bleeding from a pedunculated mass measuring 15 cm in the widest diameter on the right side of the vulva. Features of this case are discussed as well as its implications, especially regarding the decision of labour. Due to the big size of the mass and its propensity to bleed, we decided to perform an elective caesarean section as well as its excision.

Background

Fibroepithelial stromal polyps of the vulvovaginal region are uncommon hormone-sensitive lesions that occur especially in women of reproductive age.1 They usually appear in the vagina, and rarely in the vulva or cervix.2 These lesions have a wide range of morphological appearances and tend to grow up to 5 cm, but can rarely reach up to 20 cm.3 4 Despite being usually asymptomatic, they can cause discharge, bleeding or general discomfort with the sensation of heaviness. The pathogenesis of these polyps is still not well known, but there is evidence suggesting a hormonal influence such as the association with pregnancy and hormone therapy, and the presence of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in fibroepithelial stromal cells.5–7 Although benign, they have numerous morphological appearances and therefore can be confused with some malignant tumours. The treatment is local excision and the diagnosis is confirmed with histopathological studies2.

Case presentation

A 22-year-old woman at 29 weeks’ gestation (gravida 1, para 0) presented to the obstetrics emergency department with spontaneous bleeding from a mass on the right side of the vulva. On examination of the external genitalia, there was a very large pedunculated mass with multiple finger-like projections.

The patient described having a small vulvar mass since she was 11 years old that had grown with the pregnancy (figure 1A), causing a sensation of heaviness in her pelvis without pain. She had been too embarrassed to seek medical help before, but she reported that she had never bled from the mass. Until then, the pregnancy had been uneventful, besides a urinary tract infection with Escherichia coli at 25weeks, which was successfully treated with antibiotics.

Figure 1

(A) Vulvar mass at 29 weeks of pregnancy. (B) Simple sutures to control the bleeding.

The bleeding had no haemodynamic repercussion and was controlled with some simple sutures (figure 1B). The patient was followed through the rest of the pregnancy in the hospital. Coming to term, the vulvar mass grew larger to a maximum of 15.5 cm and she had one more episode of small bleeding that was easily controlled with compression.

Investigations

To better characterise the mass, a Doppler ultrasound was performed which showed a hypoechogenic oval mass with hypervascularisation around it (figure 2).

Figure 2

Doppler ultrasound of the vulvar mass.

Treatment

Taking into consideration the size of the lesion and its risk of bleeding, we decided to perform an elective caesarean section. At 39 weeks of pregnancy, a female baby was born with an Apgar score of 9−10−10 and a birth weight of 2990 g. In the same procedure, we also performed the excision of the vulvar mass without any complications (figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3

Vulvar mass on the day of the procedure, at 39 weeks of pregnancy.

Figure 4

Primary closure after the excision of the mass.

Outcome and follow-up

The histopathological study revealed a giant fibroepithelial polyp of 15.5×11.5×4 cm and weighing 282 g (figure 5). Microscopically, it showed keratinised squamous epithelium covering stromal tissue with myxoid areas and fibrovascular support. The stalk of the polyp presented medium diameter thin-walled vessels. The results of immunohistochemistry staining were positive for oestrogen and progesterone receptors, and negative for CD34 (figure 6).

Figure 5

Mass after excision, 15.5×11.5×4 cm.

Figure 6

(A) Mass lined by keratinised squamous epithelium with an underlying myxoid, loose fibrous stroma, thin-walled vessels and areas with skin adnexa (H&E, 40×). (B and C) Stroma composed of spindled to stellate cells loosely arranged, their nuclei is bland with no nuclear atypia or increased mitotic activity. There are multiple medium-to-small sized thin-walled blood vessels (H&E, 100× and 200×, respectively). (D and E) The spindle-shaped cells are immunoreactive to progesterone and oestrogen receptors (100×).

There were no complications during the immediate follow-up and the patient was discharged from the hospital 3 days after the surgery. One week later, she had a small dehiscence of the vulvar suture (figure 7) which was re-sutured.

Figure 7

Dehiscense of the sutures 1 week after the surgery.

At 5 weeks follow-up, the patient presented with favourable overall outcomes and very satisfying aesthetical and functional results (figure 8).

Figure 8

Vulva appearance 5 weeks after the surgery.

One year after the procedure the patient has no signs of recurrence.

Discussion

Fibroepithelial polyps are benign lesions which are usually small and asymptomatic. Their most common presentation is in the vagina but they can also appear on the vulva. They are classified as giant fibroepithelial polyps when they are larger than 5 cm.8

These lesions are described to be hormone-dependent. Microscopically, they are characterised by a stroma composed of stellate cells with a fibrovascular supporting core, no increased mitotic activity and covered by a squamous epithelium. The stromal cells may be positive for oestrogen and progesterone receptors,3 which supports the evidence of a strong relationship with hormonal stimulation, and in our case, explains the growth of the lesion during the pregnancy.

Even though the definite diagnosis is histopathological, imaging can be useful to characterise the mass. The ultrasound enables an evaluation of the extension of the lesion and its blood supply.

There are some reports of vaginal polyps which reduced and even disappeared some weeks after delivery.6 In the presented case, the lesion had appeared before the pregnancy and seemed unlikely to resolve with any other approach besides surgery. Considering its size, the possibility of obstruction to the baby’s passage and since it had already spontaneously bled twice, the approach chosen was to avoid a vaginal operative delivery. To reduce the risk of trauma and major bleeding, we decided to perform a caesarean section and the excision of the vulvar mass in the same operative time.

Recurrence of these polyps is rare but may occur in case of incomplete excision or continuous hormonal stimulation (eg, a new pregnancy)1; therefore, a continuous long-term follow-up is advised.

Learning points

  • Fibroepithelial polyps are more common in the vagina and tend to be small. Giant vulvar polyps are rare, they may appear in pregnancy and can be very disfiguring and a source of discomfort and shame for women.

  • The various morphological appearance of these polyps may pose difficulties in their diagnosis. So, microscopic evaluation is essential to confirm it.

  • There are very few studies about the optimal delivery mode in cases of large vulvar masses, so each case must be evaluated individually in order to establish the best management possible.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge Dr Teresa Maria Costa for the acquisition of the histopathological images and her assistance in interpreting them. I would also like to thank Dr Rui Morais who did a critical revision of the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Contributors CS: interviewed the patient, designed the case report, performed the literature review and drafted as well as revised all the manuscripts. LS: participated in the interview of the patient and proofread all editions of the manuscript. TGG and JM: performed the excisional procedure and proofread all the editions of this manuscript. All the authors and collaborators have approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

References

Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer