A rare mimic of cecal neoplasia

Case report OA: gold CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-26 ⓘ

This paper identifies appendiceal intussusception as a rare mimic of cecal neoplasia, warning that misdiagnosis as a polyp and subsequent endoscopic removal can cause severe iatrogenic complications.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-26 · read from full text ⓘ

This case report describes a 46-year-old female presenting with right lower quadrant pain, where imaging and colonoscopy initially suggested a cecal neoplasm. Surgical resection revealed an inverted appendix causing intussusception, with histological analysis confirming glandular structures embedded in endometrial stroma within the appendiceal wall. The study highlights that while clinical diagnosis is challenging, awareness of this mimicry is crucial to avoid iatrogenic complications during endoscopic intervention. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — specifically, it documents a rare presentation of appendiceal endometriosis masquerading as a cecal mass leading to surgical discovery.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Appendiceal intussusception is a rare, but relevant differential diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia on endoscopy. Misdiagnosis as polyp and endoscopic removal may result in severe iatrogenic complications.
Full text 2,862 characters · extracted from pmc-nxml · 4 sections · click to expand

Case

Appendiceal intussusception is a rare condition of various etiology and may mimic colorectal neoplasia. Clinical awareness of this condition is important for proper therapeutic management and to avoid iatrogenic complications. A 46‐year‐old female presented with dull right lower‐quadrant pain for three weeks and tenderness at McBurney's point. Ultrasound revealed a hypoechoic mass protruding in the cecum, which was considered suspicious in subsequent colonoscopy, performed to rule out malignancy (Figure  1A ). The patient underwent ileocecal resection. Gross pathological examination showed a polypoid structure with focal hemorrhage (Figure  1B and 1C ) . Integrating the clinical scenario and gross findings, what is the diagnosis and the most likely underlying condition? A: Endoscopic view of the lesion. B: Ileocecal resection specimen. Hashtag: Ileum; asterisk: cecum; arrow: ileocecal valve; tweezers: lesion. C: Close‐up view of the lesion The lesion unmasked as a complete intussusception of the appendix (Figure  2A ). Histological evaluation confirmed the finding of an inverted appendix (Figure  2B ) with associated ulcerative inflammation. Additionally, glandular structures (Figure  2B and 2C ) embedded in an endometrial stroma were found within the appendiceal wall, consistent with appendiceal endometriosis. The patient was discharged in good health. A: Ileocecal resection specimen with serosal view of the intussusception. The tweezers hold stretched, invaginated mesenteric tissue next to the original location of the appendix (arrow), which appears absent from this perspective. Also note that due to the serosal perspective neither the ileocecal valve nor ileal mucosa are visible on this image. asterisk: cecum. B: Histology of the inverted appendix (transverse section). Asterisk: serosa outside‐in; hashtag: mucosa inside‐out. H&E, 40× magnification. C. Histology showing appendiceal endometriosis with glandular structures (arrows) embedded in an endometrial stroma. H&E, 100× magnification Appendiceal intussusception is a rare condition first described by McKidd et al in 1858. 1 Endometriosis represents the most common adult etiology. Clinical diagnosis is difficult, which is why in most cases appendiceal intussusception is diagnosed upon surgery. 2 Awareness of this condition is, however, crucial as endoscopic removal may result in severe iatrogenic complications, if misdiagnosed as colonic polyp.

Author

TA: involved in writing the case report and review of literature. MvF: involved in the patient's care and provided clinical details. BG: involved in writing the case report and review of literature.

Ethics

The use of tissue specimens was approved by the University's ethics committee (approval code 206/2015).

Coi Statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: pmc-nxml ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-25T09:32:14.900964+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:30:55.889260+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-12T06:43:03.944938+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0