Image 1_Case Report: Malignant transformation of deep infiltrating endometriosis: a report of two cases and literature review.jpeg

Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is a severe form of endometriosis that rarely undergoes malignant transformation, and when it does, diagnosis is often difficult. Here, we report two cases of long-standing DIE that progressed to endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The first case involved a 44-year-old woman with pelvic DIE complicated by hydronephrosis, who underwent radical surgery with ureteroneocystostomy. Postoperative pathology confirmed well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma, and she remained disease-free after receiving chemotherapy and targeted therapy. The second case was a 47-year-old woman with an 18-year history of dysmenorrhea and chronic pelvic pain, also complicated by hydronephrosis. Surgical exploration revealed extensive pelvic adhesions and DIE lesions, and pathology confirmed endometrioid adenocarcinoma. She received postoperative chemotherapy, including an antibody-drug conjugate, and showed no evidence of recurrence during follow-up. A review of the literature identified 57 additional reported cases of malignant transformation arising from DIE, most commonly involving the rectosigmoid colon, vagina, and ureter. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma was the most frequently observed histological subtype. Due to its nonspecific clinical manifestations and overlap with benign DIE, diagnosis remains challenging. Current evidence supports a multidisciplinary approach combining complete surgical resection with adjuvant therapy. Clinicians should remain aware of the rare but possible malignant potential of DIE to facilitate earlier diagnosis and appropriate management.

Endometriosis (EMS), defined as the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterine cavity, affects approximately 2–10% of women of reproductive age worldwide, with reported prevalence rising to 30–50% among patients with infertility and chronic pelvic pain (). Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE), characterized by lesions penetrating more than 5 mm beneath the peritoneal surface, frequently involves adjacent organs such as the bowel and ureters. EMS is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, with an overall malignant transformation rate of 0.7%–1%; about 80% of these cases arise from ovarian lesions, most commonly presenting as clear cell carcinoma or endometrioid adenocarcinoma (). Extraovarian malignant transformation accounts for roughly 20% of cases and mainly involves the rectovaginal septum, colon, and vaginal wall, with endometrioid adenocarcinoma being the predominant histological subtype (). Histopathological examination remains the definitive standard for diagnosing malignant transformation arising from endometriosis. The diagnostic criteria were first proposed by Sampson in 1925 () and later refined by Scott in 1953 (). In essence, diagnosis requires several key elements: (1) coexistence of carcinoma and benign endometriotic tissue; (2) a clear histological relationship between the carcinoma and adjacent endometriosis; (3) evidence that the carcinoma originates from the endometriotic focus rather than representing metastasis or secondary invasion; and (4) demonstrable transition from benign to malignant epithelium on microscopic evaluation, including direct continuity between benign and malignant components or visible malignant change within endometriotic lesions (). However, establishing a pathological diagnosis is particularly challenging in cases of DIE. In malignant transformation of DIE, approximately 20%–30% of patients show no obvious abnormalities in the ovaries or endometrium on imaging or pathological assessment, with lesions often restricted to deeply infiltrative sites such as the rectovaginal septum and uterosacral ligaments (). In addition, extensive anatomical distortion caused by progressive DIE further increases surgical difficulty and operative risk (). Given the limited available evidence, no standardized management strategy has been established for these patients. In this study, we present two cases of malignant transformation arising from DIE and review the relevant literature to improve clinical awareness, with particular attention to hydronephrosis as a presenting feature, molecular profiling using next-generation sequencing, and postoperative adjuvant therapy including antibody–drug conjugates. Case representation Case one A 44-year-old woman with a history of right ureteral and pelvic deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) underwent laparoscopic surgery in 2018, followed by treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a). The patient had no family history of endometriosis, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, or Lynch syndrome-associated malignancies. Follow-up showed regular menses with mild dysmenorrhea, accompanied by cyclical rectal tenesmus. One year earlier, routine examination revealed right hydronephrosis, and a ureteral double-J stent was placed. However, subsequent ultrasound indicated progressive hydronephrosis, with intermittent right lumbar discomfort. On physical examination, a fixed right adnexal mass of approximately 3 cm was palpated. Preoperative evaluation raised strong concern for malignant transformation. Serum tumor markers were markedly elevated, including CA19-9 (264.00 U/mL), CA50 (161.60 IU/mL), CA242 (46.20 U/mL), CA125 (64.60 U/mL), SCC (3.80 ng/mL), and HE4 (271.00 pmol/L), with a premenopausal ROMA score of 83.1%. Pelvic MRI (Figure 1) demonstrated a solid mass in the right pelvic floor involving the distal right ureter, showing isointensity on T1WI, slightly hyperintense signal on T2WI, and diffusion restriction on DWI. Contrast-enhanced pelvic CT and CTU showed an ill-defined soft tissue mass adjacent to the cervix, extending to the distal right ureter and resulting in proximal hydronephrosis. Figure 1 She underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TH), bilateral salpingectomy (BS), resection of the anterior rectal wall lesion, right pelvic lymphadenectomy, and right ureteroneocystostomy with placement of a ureteral double-J stent in August 2024. Intraoperatively, a 4 × 5 cm friable tumor was identified in the right pelvis, involving the parametrium, uterosacral ligament, and pelvic sidewall, with encasement of the right ureter. A 1.5 cm reddish lymph node was noted near the right external iliac artery. No ascites or visible peritoneal tumor implants were seen, and both ovaries and fallopian tubes appeared grossly unremarkable. Postoperative pathology confirmed well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma (FIGO grade 1) involving the anterior rectal wall, right parametrium, pelvic floor, and partial right ureter. The patient met the histopathological criteria for deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE), with endometriotic tissue extending more than 5 mm beneath the peritoneal surface, and no metastatic involvement of pelvic lymph nodes. Immunohistochemistry (Figure 2) showed strong nuclear positivity for PAX-8 (~90%), ER (~90%) and PR (~80%), with patchy P16 expression and a wild-type P53 pattern. Ki-67 was approximately 10–15%. Mismatch repair proteins (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, PMS2) were intact, WT-1 was negative, and VIM showed cytoplasmic positivity. PD-L1 (22C3) was negative (TPS 0%, CPS 0), and HER2 scored 0. Next-generation sequencing identified somatic mutations in KRAS, PIK3CA, and PALB2, with a tumor mutational burden (TMB) of 1.26 mut/Mb. The patient received six cycles of paclitaxel plus carboplatin combined with bevacizumab, followed by six months of bevacizumab maintenance therapy, and remained disease-free at 14-month follow-up. Figure 2 Case two A 47-year-old woman presented with an 18-year history of progressive dysmenorrhea and 5 years of lumbosacral pain. Her family history was unremarkable. She had previously received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), which provided partial symptom relief, but later developed left ureteral calculi with hydronephrosis. Ureteral stenting in September 2024 was followed by aggravation of pelvic pain. Preoperative workup raised concern for malignant transformation. CA125 (123.00 U/mL) and HE4 (348.00 pmol/L) were elevated, with a premenopausal ROMA score of 90.3%, while other tumor markers were within normal range. On examination, a fixed 3-cm nodule was palpated in the uterosacral ligament region with involvement of the vaginal fornix. Pelvic MRI (Figure 3) showed a cervical mass with poorly defined borders extending toward the rectouterine pouch and adjacent cervix, posterior uterine wall, sigmoid colon, and left distal ureter, suggesting possible invasive disease. The lesion appeared isointense on T1WI, slightly hypointense on T2WI with scattered hyperintense foci, and demonstrated heterogeneous enhancement and diffusion restriction. Figure 3 Intraoperatively, dense pelvic adhesions were encountered. The left parametrium was markedly thickened and firm, and the left adnexa was involved by adhesions between the fallopian tube, ovary, and uterosacral ligament. A right ovarian endometrioma measuring about 3.5 cm was also noted. The rectum was densely adherent to the posterior uterine wall with obliteration of the pouch of Douglas. The patient underwent laparoscopic TH, BS, resection of left parametrium and right uterosacral ligament lesions, resection of rectal anterior and lateral wall lesions, excision of ovarian lesions, and left ureteral double-J stent placement in September 2024. Pathological examination confirmed well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma (FIGO grade 1) arising in ectopic endometrial tissue. Deep infiltrating endometriosis was also verified histologically, with endometrial glands and stroma identified more than 5 mm beneath the peritoneal surface. Immunohistochemistry (Figure 4) demonstrated hormone receptor positivity, with weak ER expression in approximately 20% of tumor cell nuclei and moderate PR expression in about 80%. The tumor showed a wild-type p53 pattern and patchy weak P16 staining. HER2 was equivocal (2+), and Ki-67 was approximately 20%. CD10 highlighted stromal components but was negative in tumor cells. Mismatch repair proteins were intact. Other markers, including PD-L1 (TPS 0%, CPS <1), GATA-3, and Napsin A, were negative. Figure 4 Next-generation sequencing identified somatic mutations in KRAS, SPOP, and MUC1, with a tumor mutational burden of 1.26 mut/Mb. The patient subsequently received a carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimen combined with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), an anti-HER2 antibody–drug conjugate. At 13-month follow-up, both imaging and tumor marker assessments showed no evidence of disease recurrence. The information about two cases were listed in Table 1. Table 1 | Feature | Case 1 | Case 2 | |---|---|---| | Clinical features | || | Age (years) | 44 | 47 | | History of DIE (years) | 6 | 18 | | Chief complaint | Dysmenorrhea, rectal tenesmus, hydronephrosis | Progressive dysmenorrhea, lumbosacral pain, hydronephrosis | | CA-125 (U/mL) | 64.6 | 123 | | HE4 (pmol/L) | 271 | 348 | | Tumor location | Right parametrium, pelvic floor, right ureter, rectal anterior wall | Left parametrium, left ureter, rectosigmoid, right ovary (endometrioma) | | Surgery | TH + BS + rectal lesion resection + right pelvic LND + right ureteroneocystostomy | TH + BS + left parametrial resection + right uterosacral resection + rectal resection + ovarian lesion resection | | Pathology | || | Histology | Endometrioid adenocarcinoma, FIGO grade 1 | Endometrioid adenocarcinoma, FIGO grade 1 | | Lymph node metastasis | Negative | Not performed | | IHC | || | ER | 90% strong nuclear positive | 20% weak nuclear positive | | PR | 80% strong nuclear positive | 80% moderate nuclear positive | | P53 | Wild-type | Wild-type | | Ki-67 | 10-15% | 0.2 | | MMR status | pMMR (intact) | pMMR (intact) | | HER2 | 0 | 2+ | | PD-L1 | TPS 0%, CPS 0 | TPS 0%, CPS <1 | | Genetic mutations | KRAS, PIK3CA, PALB2 | KRAS, SPOP, MUC1 | | Adjuvant therapy | Paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab, then bevacizumab maintenance | Chemotherapy + ADC (anti-HER2) | | Follow-up status | No recurrence | No recurrence | Summary and comparison of clinical, pathological, and IHC features of the two cases. Literature review To identify reported cases of malignant transformation arising from DIE over the past two decades, we conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database from January 2000 to December 2024. The search strategy combined MeSH terms and keywords including (“deep infiltrating endometriosis” OR “DIE” OR “extraovarian endometriosis” OR “rectovaginal endometriosis” OR “ureteral endometriosis”) with (“malignant transformation” OR “carcinoma” OR “cancer” OR “adenocarcinoma” OR “malignancy”), and was restricted to English-language publications. Eligible studies were those with histologically confirmed malignancy arising from DIE lesions (defined as endometriotic tissue infiltrating more than 5 mm beneath the peritoneal surface), and with available individual patient data in full-text case reports. Reports involving ovarian endometriomas, duplicates, or insufficient clinical/pathological detail were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened all records, with discrepancies resolved by discussion, and reference lists were also checked for completeness. A total of 183 records were identified, and 57 cases from 48 articles were finally included (Supplementary Table 1) (–56). Across the 57 cases, malignant transformation of DIE was observed in a broad age spectrum, with a mean age of 51 years (range: 25–75). The clinical presentation was heterogeneous but largely non-specific, most commonly including pelvic or abdominal pain, lumbosacral discomfort, dysmenorrhea, vaginal bleeding, hematochezia or rectal bleeding, and pelvic mass. A prior history of endometriosis-related surgery was present in 26 cases (44%), most often total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, followed by ovarian endometrioma excision, BSO alone, unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and isolated lesion resections including transvaginal or ureteral procedures. Postoperative management varied considerably, including GnRH-a therapy, hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy (8/57; mean duration 9 years, range 0.5–19), progestins, danazol, and steroid implantation. The mean interval from initial surgery or diagnosis to malignant transformation was 13.6 years (range: 1–30). Preoperative tumor markers were frequently elevated, particularly CA-125 and HE4, with mean values of 191 U/mL (range: 17–1,048) and 197 pmol/L (range: 104–483), respectively. Most lesions were confined to the pelvis at diagnosis. Peritoneal dissemination was exceptional, reported in only one case. Suspected lymph node enlargement was described intraoperatively in two patients, while ascites was uncommon, observed in four cases in small volume and in two cases with larger effusions (1,000 mL and 1,700 mL). Surgical treatment was performed in nearly all cases, with total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy combined with complete lesion excision as the dominant approach. Lesions most frequently involved the rectosigmoid colon (60%, 34/57), followed by the vagina (19%, 11/57), ureter (18%, 10/57), bladder (7%, 4/57), liver (5%, 3/57), and stomach (1 case, 2%). Ovarian preservation was reported in 12 cases (21%), with a mean age of 45 years (range: 25–75). Pelvic lymphadenectomy and para-aortic lymphadenectomy were performed in 23 (40%) and 9 (16%) cases, respectively. Histologically, endometrioid adenocarcinoma represented the most common subtype (35/57, 61.4%), followed by clear cell carcinoma (6/57, 10.5%), high-grade serous carcinoma (5/57, 8.8%), carcinosarcoma (3/57, 5.3%), mixed endometrioid and clear cell carcinoma (2/57, 3%), endometrial stromal sarcoma (2/57, 3.5%), adenosarcoma (1/57, 1.8%), squamous cell carcinoma (1/57, 1.8%), and mixed HGSC with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (1/57, 1.8%). One case showed histologic transformation from endometrioid adenocarcinoma to clear cell carcinoma at recurrence. Lymph node metastases were reported in pelvic (5 cases), para-aortic (1 case), and mesenteric nodes (2 cases). Molecular data remained limited, but KRAS mutations (2 cases), BRCA1 mutation (1 case), combined BRCA1 with MMR deficiency (1 case), MSH2/MSH6 alterations (1 case), MLH1 hypermethylation (1 case), and MMR-proficient status (2 cases) were reported. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 42 patients (73.6%). The most commonly used regimen was paclitaxel plus platinum (29 cases, 69.0%), followed by doxorubicin plus platinum (4 cases, 9.5%), cyclophosphamide plus platinum (3 cases, 5.3%), and cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil (2 cases, 3.5%). Targeted and emerging therapies were occasionally reported, including bevacizumab (3 cases, 7.1%), antibody–drug conjugates (1 case, 2.3%), and pembrolizumab (1 case, 2.3%). Radiotherapy was applied in 7 cases (16.7%), and progestin monotherapy in 3 cases (5.3%). During follow-up, disease progression occurred in two patients, stable disease in one, and recurrence in five cases.

Malignant transformation of DIE is often clinically silent until advanced, largely due to its deep pelvic location, fibrosis, and distortion of normal anatomical planes. The diagnostic delay has been reported to range from 4 to 11 years, and up to 65% of patients are initially misdiagnosed (57). In the present series, both patients developed hydronephrosis, a finding documented in only 17.5% of reported cases, suggesting it may be an under-recognized warning sign. Molecular profiling was rarely performed in previous reports (12.3%), whereas both of our cases underwent sequencing, identifying KRAS/PIK3CA mutations in Case 1 and KRAS alteration with HER2 2+ expression in Case 2. To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the use of a HER2-targeted antibody–drug conjugate in malignant DIE. Several factors appear to contribute to malignant transformation, including hormonal exposure, chronic inflammation, immune dysregulation, and genetic alterations (58–60). Disease duration is likely relevant, as reflected by the mean 13.6-year interval observed in the reviewed cases. Clinically, symptoms remain indistinguishable from benign DIE, particularly dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, which often delays recognition of malignant change. Ureteral or rectal involvement may manifest as hydronephrosis or bowel symptoms, yet these are frequently attributed to benign disease or managed in non-gynecologic departments, as seen in our cases. Diagnosis requires integration of clinical findings, imaging, and laboratory markers. MRI and CT urography are particularly useful for evaluating deep pelvic invasion and urinary tract involvement, while PET/CT may provide additional metabolic information despite limited spatial resolution (61). CA-125 and HE4 are frequently elevated, with HE4 showing relatively better consistency across cases, suggesting potential value in risk stratification. There are currently no standardized treatment guidelines. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of management, typically requiring extensive pelvic procedures depending on disease extent (62). Although lymph node metastasis has been documented, its prognostic significance remains unclear, and the role of routine lymphadenectomy is still debated (63). Ovarian preservation may be feasible in carefully selected patients, but requires strict preoperative assessment and close follow-up (57). Systemic chemotherapy, mainly paclitaxel plus platinum, remains the standard postoperative treatment (64). Immunotherapy has shown potential in endometriosis-associated malignancies with higher PD-L1 expression (65), but both of our cases showed low PD-L1 expression and low tumor mutational burden, suggesting limited benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition. Antibody–drug conjugates represent an emerging therapeutic option. FRα-targeted agents are under investigation in gynecologic malignancies (66). In Case 2, HER2 expression (2+) provided a rationale for incorporating trastuzumab deruxtecan, highlighting the potential role of molecular stratification in treatment selection (67). Both of our cases carried KRAS mutations, a finding also reported in prior literature (68). Multiple studies have detected cancer driver mutations in KRAS, PIK3CA, ARID1A, and PPP2R1A in the epithelial cells of benign endometriosis, including ovarian endometriomas and extraovarian DIE (69). About one-quarter of DIE patients harbor such mutations on comprehensive genomic analysis (70). Despite this prevalence, malignant transformation of extraovarian DIE is rare. KRAS and PIK3CA mutations may help endometriotic tissue implant and survive at ectopic sites, but they are not sufficient to cause cancer (). In our Case 1, KRAS and PIK3CA mutations co-occurred. This combination occurs in 10-15% of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancers (EAOC) and activates both MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways (71). In EAOC, the same mutations in ovarian endometriomas can lead to clear cell or endometrioid adenocarcinoma (70). Our two DIE cases progressed to malignancy with molecular profiles (KRAS, PIK3CA, wild-type p53, intact MMR) similar to EAOC, suggesting additional events may be needed for transformation. Candidate events include the PALB2 mutation in Case 1, which affects homologous recombination repair and may cause genomic instability, and HER2 2+ expression in Case 2. The SPOP mutation in Case 2 is less studied in gynecologic cancers; SPOP encodes a substrate-binding adaptor of the CULLIN3 E3 ubiquitin ligase complex and plays a crucial role in protein degradation through ubiquitination. In prostate cancer, loss-of-function SPOP mutations are an early event that stabilizes androgen receptors and increases AR signaling. In endometrial cancer, SPOP mutations alter substrate affinity, increasing degradation of bromodomain proteins while reducing degradation of estrogen receptors (72). The functional consequences of SPOP mutations in the context of DIE-associated malignancy remain unexplored, but given the estrogen-dependent nature of endometriosis, altered estrogen receptor signaling via mutant SPOP could theoretically contribute to malignant transformation (73). Both cases had wild-type p53 and intact MMR proteins, placing them in the NSMP category (60-76% of EAOC cases). Whether DIE-associated malignancies have distinct drivers or share the same molecular spectrum as EAOC requires larger studies. Several limitations of this study should be noted. The relatively small sample size and possible publication bias may limit the generalizability of the findings. In Case 1, a direct histological transition from benign DIE to carcinoma was not demonstrated, although benign endometriotic tissue was seen in close proximity. The absence of a control group also limits comparison of tumor markers such as HE4. Follow-up time is still limited in some cases. In addition, there are currently no standardized diagnostic or treatment guidelines for this condition, and management is largely based on experience from ovarian cancer and expert consensus.

The etiology of malignant transformation in DIE remains incompletely understood and is thought to involve genetic alterations, epigenetic changes, hormonal imbalance, and chronic inflammation. Based on our two cases together with 57 previously reported cases, several clinical observations can be made. Hydronephrosis was present in both of our patients but reported in only 17.5% of published cases, suggesting that it may be under-recognized in routine practice. In patients with long-standing DIE (≥10 years), new-onset or progressive hydronephrosis should raise concern for possible malignant transformation, particularly when accompanied by elevated HE4 levels. For follow-up, we propose a risk-adapted strategy, with surveillance every 6–12 months in stable patients and every 3–6 months in those with significant symptoms or larger lesions, incorporating symptom assessment, gynecologic examination, pelvic ultrasound, and serum CA-125 and HE4, while MRI, CTU, or PET/CT may be considered when clinically indicated. Molecular analysis in our cases revealed concurrent KRAS/PIK3CA mutations in Case 1 and KRAS alteration with HER2 2+ expression in Case 2; to our knowledge, this is the first report describing the use of an anti-HER2 antibody–drug conjugate in malignant DIE, suggesting that molecular profiling may help identify potential therapeutic targets in selected patients. Future multicenter studies with integrated multi-omics approaches, including whole-exome sequencing, single-cell analysis, and proteomics, are warranted to further clarify the mechanisms underlying malignant transformation and to facilitate the development of reliable biomarkers for early diagnosis and precision therapy. Statements Data availability statement The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. Ethics statement This case report was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and adhered to ethical guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. Ethical approval was not required for this publication as per the policies of our institution. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article. Written informed consent was obtained from the participant/patient(s) for the publication of this case report. Author contributions YG: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. XZ: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. YS: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. ZH: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. QL: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. HZ: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. PL: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. KL: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Funding The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The study was funded by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (project number YG2024ZD06), National Natural Science Foundation of China (project number 82371652) and Beijing Science and Technology Innovation Medical Development Foundation (project number KC2023-JX-0186-RM071). Conflict of interest The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Generative AI statement The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript. Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us. Publisher’s note All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Supplementary material The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1709462/full#supplementary-material Supplementary Figure 1Clinical timelines of the two cases. Supplementary Table 1Characteristics of patients with malignant transformation of DIE.

1 SimoensSDunselmanGDirksenCHummelshojLBokorABrandesIet al. The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Hum Reprod (Oxford England). (2012) 27:1292–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des073 2 HeapsJMNiebergRKBerekJS. Malignant neoplasms arising in endometriosis. Obstetrics Gynecology. (1990) 75:1023–8. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(91)90262-4 3 KuroseSNakayamaKRaziaSIshikawaMIshibashiTYamashitaHet al. Whole-exome sequencing of rare site endometriosis-associated cancer. Dis (Basel Switzerland). (2021) 9. doi: 10.3390/diseases9010014 4 SampsonJA. Endometrial carcinoma of the ovary, arising in endometrial tissue in that organ. Arch Surg. (1925) 10:1–72. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1925.01120100007001 5 ScottRB. Malignant changes in endometriosis. Obstetrics Gynecology. (1953) 2:283–9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(61)90296-4 6 KoninckxPRFernandesRUssiaASchindlerLWattiezAAl-SuwaidiSet al. Pathogenesis based diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Front Endocrinol. (2021) 12:745548. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.745548 7 RoussetPFlorinMBharwaniNTouboulCMonrocMGolfierFet al. Deep pelvic infiltrating endometriosis: MRI consensus lexicon and compartment-based approach from the ENDOVALIRM group. Diagn Interventional Imaging. (2023) 104:95–112. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2022.09.004 8 QiQLiYChenZLuoZZhouTZhouJet al. Update on the pathogenesis of endometriosis-related infertility based on contemporary evidence. Front Endocrinol. (2025) 16:1558271. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1558271 9 AbaidLNCuppJSChangMBeanesSRGoldsteinBH. Clear cell carcinoma of the pelvic side wall arising from endometriosis. Gynecologic Oncol Rep. (2018) 25:24–6. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2018.05.006 10 AgrawalANationJGhatagePChuPRossSMaglioccoA. Malignant chest wall endometriosis: a case report and literature review. J Obstetrics Gynaecology Canada. (2009) 31:538–41. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)34217-7 11 ChenMZhangYXuMLiuDYangYYaoS. Primary high-grade serous cancer arising from uterosacral ligament endometriosis: two case reports. J Int Med Res. (2022) 50:3000605221109373. doi: 10.1177/03000605221109373 12 ChenPDengYWangQQXuHW. Mass-like extragonadal endometriosis associated Malignant transformation in the pelvis: a rare case report. World J Clin cases. (2022) 10:11567–73. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i31.11567 13 CucinellaGSozziGDi DonnaMCUntiEMarianiAChianteraV. Retroperitoneal squamous cell carcinoma involving the pelvic side wall arising from endometriosis: a case report. Gynecologic Obstetric Invest. (2022) 87:159–64. doi: 10.1159/000520983 14 EfthymiouCA. Endometriosis-associated intestinal tumours: a consequence of long-term unopposed oestrogen? Ann R Coll Surgeons Engl. (2009) 91:259–60. doi: 10.1308/003588409x391848 15 ElsaadanySJosanACrowleyRGouldieM. A case report on endometriosis-associated intestinal tumour following hysterectomy: diagnostic challenges and implications for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) guidelines. Cureus. (2024) 16:e74306. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74306 16 EurichKEGoffBAUrbanRR. Two cases of extragonadal Malignant transformation of endometriosis after TAH/BSO for benign indications. Gynecologic Oncol Rep. (2019) 28:23–5. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2018.12.011 17 FruscioRPadulaFManciniEPellegrinoANictolisM. Malignant transformation of vaginal endometriosis treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. J Obstetrics Gynaecology Res. (2008) 34:706–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00911.x 18 FujiuKMiyamotoHHashimotoSSuzukiNTakanoYTeranishiYet al. A case of diaphragmatic clear cell carcinoma in a patient with a medical history of ovarian endometriosis. Int J Clin Oncol. (2010) 15:489–92. doi: 10.1007/s10147-010-0052-y 19 GodaTYokoyamaYSatoYKandaTSuzukiMSatoKet al. High grade endometrioid carcinoma arising from deep infiltrating endometriosis extending deeply into the pelvis: a case report. J Surg Case Rep. (2025) 2025:rjaf266. doi: 10.1093/jscr/rjaf266 20 HealyKACarneyKJOsunkoyaAO. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma in the native ureter of a renal transplant patient: case report and review of the literature. TheScientificWorldJournal. (2010) 10:1714–22. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2010.166 21 HemedezCATLommeMRuhul QuddusM. Mullerian carcinosarcoma in the colon of a patient with history of endometrial carcinoma: a case report and insight into possible pathogenesis. Gynecologic Oncol Rep. (2018) 26:49–52. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2018.09.003 22 HoangCDBoettcherAKJessurunJPambuccianSBullardK. An unusual rectosigmoid mass: endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising in colonic endometriosis: case report and literature review. Am Surgeon. (2005) 71:694–7. doi: 10.1177/000313480507100815 23 KawateSTakeyoshiIIkotaHNumagaYSunoseYMorishitaY.et al. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis of the mesenterium of the sigmoid colon. Jpn J Clin Oncol. (2005) 35:154–7. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyi037 24 KilziehRRakislovaNTornéASalvadorRNadalAOrdiJet al. Endometrial stromal sarcoma arising in colorectal endometriosis. Int J Gynecological Pathol. (2017) 36:433–7. doi: 10.1097/pgp.0000000000000351 25 KimJHSongSHKimGKimKAKimWR. The multistep process of vaginal cancer arising from deep infiltrating endometriosis: a case report. BMC Women's Health. (2021) 21:271. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01410-5 26 KobayashiSSasakiMGotoTAsakageNSekineMSuzukiTet al. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis of the rectosigmoid. Digestive Endoscopy. (2010) 22:59–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2009.00925.x 27 KondoEMakiSNiiMYoshidaKTabataTIkedaT. Long-term survival of a patient with Malignant transformation of extragonadal endometriosis treated solely with chemotherapy: a case report. J Obstetrics Gynaecology Res. (2018) 44:2186–9. doi: 10.1111/jog.13773 28 KusakaMMikuniMNishiyaM. A case of high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma arising from endometriosis in the cul-de-sac. Int J Gynecological Cancer. (2006) 16:895–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00236.x 29 KwonYSNamJHChoiG. Clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in endometriosis of a previous episiotomy site. Obstetrics Gynecology. (2008) 112:475–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318179475b 30 LiBWangYWangYLiSLiuK. Deep infiltrating endometriosis Malignant invasion of cervical wall and rectal wall with Lynch syndrome: a rare case report and review of literature. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:832228. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.832228 31 LiNZhouWZhaoLZhouJ. Endometriosis-associated recto-sigmoid cancer: a case report. BMC Cancer. (2018) 18:905. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4797-4 32 LiangZHChengWJLiuYZhangFChenS-tZhouJet al. Malignant transformation of rectal endometriosis: preoperative diagnosis by endorectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Clin Ultrasound: JCU. (2023) 51:479–84. doi: 10.1002/jcu.23407 33 MabroukMVicenziCFerriniGGeraciEFornoSCapraraGet al. Mixed adenocarcinoma of the rectovaginal septum associated with endometriosis and endometrial carcinoma: a case report. Case Rep Oncol. (2011) 4:149–54. doi: 10.1159/000326067 34 MakiharaNFujitaISoudafHYamamotoTSashikataTMukoharaTet al. A case of endometrioid adenocarcinoma originating from the serous surface of the small intestine. Rare Tumors. (2015) 7:5932. doi: 10.4081/rt.2015.5932 35 MatsukiMNumotoIHamakawaTIshiiKChikugoT. Primary diaphragmatic clear cell carcinoma associated with endometriosis: a case report and literature review. Gynecologic Oncol Rep. (2021) 36:100733. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2021.100733 36 NoelJCAnafVFaytIWespesE. Ureteral mullerian carcinosarcoma (mixed mullerian tumor) associated with endometriosis occurring in a patient with a concentrated soy isoflavones supplementation. Arch Gynecology Obstetrics. (2006) 274:389–92. doi: 10.1007/s00404-006-0188-1 37 OkimuraHTatsumiHItoFYamashitaSKokabuTKitawakiJJJoOet al. Endometrioid carcinoma arising from diaphragmatic endometriosis treated with laparoscopy: a case report. J Obstetrics Gynaecology Res. (2018) 44:972–7. doi: 10.1111/jog.13595 38 OsakuDTaniguchiFMoriyamaMSatoSOishiTHaradaT. Retroperitoneal endometrioid carcinoma arising from ureteral endometriosis. Case Rep Obstetrics Gynecology. (2019) 2019:9273858. doi: 10.1155/2019/9273858 39 OtaYOtaKTakahashiTSuzkiSSanoROtaIet al. Primary endometrioid carcinoma of the uterosacral ligament arising from deep infiltrating endometriosis 6 years after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy due to atypical proliferative endometrioid tumor of the ovary: a rare case report. World J Surg Oncol. (2020) 18:329. doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-02105-1 40 PallaVVKaraolanisGBlionaTKatafigiotisIAnastasiouIHassiakosD. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising from colon endometriosis. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. (2017) 5:2050313x17745204. doi: 10.1177/2050313x17745204 41 ParkHMLeeSSEomDWKangGHYiSWSohnWS. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis of the uterine cervix: a case report. J Korean Med Sci. (2009) 24:767–71. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2009.24.4.767 42 PeerenboomRWangSMorganRSankarySYassanLKurnitKet al. Müllerian-type carcinosarcoma arising in gastric endometriosis: case report and review of the literature. Clin Case Rep. (2024) 12:e8604. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.8604 43 PontrelliGCozzolinoMStepniewskaABruniFPesciACeccaroniM. Primary vaginal adenosarcoma with sarcomatous overgrowth arising in recurrent endometriosis: feasibility of laparoscopic treatment and review of the literature. J Minimally Invasive Gynecology. (2016) 23:833–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.019 44 SalernoMGMasciulloVNaldiniAZannoniGFVelloneVScambiaG. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation arising from ureteral endometriosis in a patient with no history of gonadal endometriosis. Gynecologic Oncol. (2005) 99:749–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.06.056 45 SekiKIshikawaHHashimotoRMitsuhashiAIkedaJIShozuM. Development of localized cul-de-sac endometrioid carcinoma associated with deep infiltrating endometriosis during remission of early endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncol Rep. (2020) 31:100526. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2019.100526 46 ShahCPizerEVeljovichDSDrescherCWPetersWA3rdPaleyPJ. Clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina in a patient with vaginal endometriosis. Gynecologic Oncol. (2006) 103:1130–2. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.044 47 SinghMRaverMDeagrestaBDella PiaASaxenaSKlobocistaMet al. Endometriosis-associated primary clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder: a case report and literature review. Urol Case Rep. (2025) 58:102916. doi: 10.1016/j.eucr.2024.102916 48 SongLXingALiQWangG. High-grade serous carcinoma resulting from rectal endometriosis and complicated with ovarian cancer. Front Oncol. (2019) 9:1252. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01252 49 StoklosaAArmbusterYMarshallLMcDowellJLZhangNSmithAet al. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the colon arising from rare Malignant transformation of extra-gonadal endometrioma. Gynecologic Oncol Rep. (2025) 57:101664. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2024.101664 50 UlrichURhiemKKaminskiMWardelmannETrogDValterMet al. Parametrial and rectovaginal adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis. Int J Gynecological Cancer. (2005) 15:1206–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.00184.x 51 WangDYangQWangHLiuC. Malignant transformation of hepatic endometriosis: a case report and literature review. BMC Women's Health. (2021) 21:249. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01366-6 52 WuWCHsiaoMWYeJCHungY-CChangW. Malignant transformation of extragonadal endometriosis: a case report. Eur J Gynaecological Oncol. (2009) 30:563–5. 53 YanagitaTHikichiTWaragaiYShimizuHTakahashiYAbeNet al. Mixed high-grade serous and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma arising from rectal endometriosis 11 years after hysterectomy. Clin J Gastroenterol. (2023) 16:366–71. doi: 10.1007/s12328-023-01769-y 54 YangHGuJJQiYZhaoWWangXL. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the rectovaginal septum with invasion of the rectum: a case report and review of literature. World J Surg Oncol. (2019) 17:206. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1743-0 55 ZhaoKHuMLiXYangRHuangY. Clinicopathological features of endometriosis-associated adenocarcinoma of the rectum: a report of two cases. Oncol Lett. (2024) 28:523. doi: 10.3892/ol.2024.14656 56 ZhouCLuoXTangMLuoFLiaoZ. A rare case of concomitant endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising from uterine adenomyosis and clear cell carcinoma arising from parametrial deep endometriosis. BMC Women's Health. (2024) 24:440. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03170-4 57 TaylorHSKotlyarAMFloresVA. Endometriosis is a chronic systemic disease: clinical challenges and novel innovations. Lancet (London England). (2021) 397:839–52. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00389-5 58 RongaABNajiaSKSahasrabudheNPrescottRBuruianaFEHeazellA. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma presenting in a patient 18 years after hysterectomy: a potential hazard of unopposed oestrogen therapy. BMJ Case Rep. (2009) 2009. doi: 10.1136/bcr.05.2009.1829 59 SzubertMNowak-GlückADomańska-SenderowskaDSzymańskaBSowaPRycerzAet al. miR 31-3p has the highest expression in cesarean scar endometriosis. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23. doi: 10.3390/ijms23094660 60 WuLMLiJK. Malignant transformation of deep infiltrating endometriosis with invasion of the rectum in a 34-year-old woman. Asian J Surg. (2023) 46:2999–3000. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.02.024 61 CoppolaFParadisiRZanardiSPapadopoulosDGramenziAValerioDet al. Computed tomography-colonography with intravenous contrast medium and urographic phase for the evaluation of pelvic deep infiltrating endometriosis of intestinal and urinary tract. J Comput Assisted Tomogr. (2019) 43:513–8. doi: 10.1097/rct.0000000000000867 62 RomanHVassilieffMTuechJJHuetESavoyeGMarpeauLet al. Postoperative digestive function after radical versus conservative surgical philosophy for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Fertility Sterility. (2013) 99:1695–704. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.131 63 DengTHuangQWanTLuoXFengYHuangHet al. The impact of lymph node dissection on survival in patients with clinical early-stage ovarian cancer. J Gynecologic Oncol. (2021) 32:e40. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e40 64 RandallMEFiliaciVMcMeekinDSvon GruenigenVEHuangHQYasharCMet al. Phase III trial: adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy versus vaginal brachytherapy plus paclitaxel/carboplatin in high-intermediate and high-risk early stage endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2019) 37:1810–8. doi: 10.1200/jco.18.01575 65 NeroCRomitoISpadolaSRomitoATurcoLCCosentinoFet al. Infiltrating T lymphocytes and programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1 expression in endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer. Fertility Sterility. (2022) 117:160–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.08.032 66 MooreKNAngelerguesAKonecnyGEGarcíaYBanerjeeSLorussoDet al. Mirvetuximab soravtansine in FRα-positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. (2023) 389:2162–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309169 67 LiWZhangKWangWLiuYHuangJZhengMet al. Combined inhibition of HER2 and VEGFR synergistically improves therapeutic efficacy via PI3K-AKT pathway in advanced ovarian cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Research: CR. (2024) 43:56. doi: 10.1186/s13046-024-02981-5 68 StewartCJLeungYWalshMDWaltersRJYoungJPBuchananDD. KRAS mutations in ovarian low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma: association with concurrent endometriosis. Hum Pathol. (2012) 43:1177–83. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2011.10.009 69 SudaKNakaokaHYoshiharaKIshiguroTTamuraRMoriYet al. Clonal expansion and diversification of cancer-associated mutations in endometriosis and normal endometrium. Cell Rep. (2018) 24:1777–89. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.07.037 70 AnglesioMSPapadopoulosNAyhanANazeranTMNoëMHorlingsHMet al. Cancer-associated mutations in endometriosis without cancer. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:1835–48. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1614814 71 JinRUMillsJC. Are gastric and esophageal metaplasia relatives? The case for Barrett's stemming from SPEM. Digestive Dis Sci. (2018) 63:2028–41. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5150-0 72 GebraelGZenginZSwamiU. Differential impact of SPOP mutation in prostate and endometrial cancers. JCO Precis Oncol. (2023) 7:e2300397. doi: 10.1200/po.23.00397 73 RenTSunTTWangSSunJXiangYShenKet al. Clinical analysis of chemo-resistance risk factors in endometriosis associated ovarian cancer. J Ovarian Res. (2018) 11:40. doi: 10.1186/s13048-018-0418-8 Summary

deep infiltrating endometriosis, diagnosis, endometrioid adenocarcinoma, oncology, treatment Citation Gu Y, Zhao X, Shi Y, Hu Z, Liu Q, Zhu H, Li P and Liu K (2026) Case Report: Malignant transformation of deep infiltrating endometriosis: a report of two cases and literature review. Front. Oncol. 16:1709462. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1709462 Received 20 September 2025 Revised 20 May 2026 Accepted 22 May 2026 Published 18 June 2026 Volume 16 - 2026 Edited by Raghunadharao Digumarti, MNJ Institute of Oncology & Regional Cancer Centre, India Reviewed by Luyang Zhao, People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, China D. Leela, St. Theresa’s Hospital, India Updates Copyright © 2026 Gu, Zhao, Shi, Hu, Liu, Zhu, Li and Liu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. *Correspondence: Kaijiang Liu, [email protected] †These authors have contributed equally to this work Disclaimer All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.