|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Etiology
and mechanisms of carcinogenesis
For many years, it has been the hope, expressed in
many epidemiological studies, to identify the cause or causes of
malignancies that occur in early life. In particular, the limited temporal
nature of intrauterine development provides a unique opportunity to
identify carcinogenic stimuli. Fetal and/or maternal exposure to exogenous
factors, including ionizing irradiation, drugs and viruses, may start the
biological mechanisms responsible for tumor formation (1). Developmental errors during embryonal and fetal
maturation may result in embryonic tumors. Durante and Cohnheim have
introduced the “cell rest” theory that may be adopted to embryonic
tumors (2 , 3). These authors believed that more cells are produced than
are required for the formation of an organ or tissue and the origins of
embryonic tumors rest in developmental errors in these surplus embryonic
rudiments. Embryonic tumors developing after infancy are explained by the
persistence of cell rests or developmental vestiges (4). Developmentally
anomalous tissue, i.e. hamartomas and dysgenic gonads, is a source of
neoplasms in older children and adults. When any of this developmentally
abnormal tissue is present at birth, it is inferred that the cells failed
to mature, migrate or differentiate properly during intrauterine life. Neoplastic transformation of cells in tissue culture
and in vivo carcinogenesis are dynamic, multistep and complex processes
that can be separated artificially into three phases: initiation,
promotion and progression (5). These phases may be applied to the natural
history of virtually all human tumors, including embryonic ones. Initiation
is the result of exposure of cells or tissues to an appropriate dose of a
carcinogen; an initiated cell is permanently damaged and has a malignant
potential. The initiated cells can persist for months or years before
becoming malignant. During the promotion phase initiated cells
clonally expand. Promotion may be modulated or reversed by a variety of
environmental conditions. In the last phase, progression, the
transformed cells develop into a tumor, ultimately with metastasis.
Embryonic tumors can therefore, be regarded as defects in the integrated
control of cell differentiation and proliferation. A genetic model of carcinogenesis has also been
introduced in an attempt to clarify the pathogenesis and behavioral
peculiarities of certain embryonic tumors (6).
According to this
hypothesis, embryonal neoplasms
arise as a result of two mutational events in the genome. The first
mutation is prezygotic in familial cases and postzygotic in non-familial;
the second mutation is always postzygotic. Benignity
of fetal and infantile neoplasms It is a fact, that some neonatal and infantile
tumors bear a benign clinical behavior despite clear malignant
histological picture. Examples include congenital neuroblastomas,
hepatoblastomas below I year of age, congenital and infantile fibromatosis,
and sacrococcygeal teratomas in infants under 4 months of age. This
regressive tendency of neonatal tumors was explained by Bolande as an
“oncogenic period of grace” which starts in utero and extends through
the first few months of extrauterine life. The factors contributing to the
existence of this phenomenon are obscure (7). Association of neoplasia and congenital
malformations
The
concept that teratogenesis and oncogenesis have shared mechanisms is well
documented by numerous examples. Probably, there is simultaneous or
sequential cellular and tissue reaction to specific injurious agents. The
degree of cytodifferentiation, the metabolic or immunological state of the
embryo or fetus, and the length of time of exposure to the agent will
determine whether the effect is teratogenic, oncogenic, both, or neither.
Many biological, chemical and physical agents known to be teratogenic to
the fetus or embryo are carcinogenic postnatally
(8). Alternatively, a
teratogenic event during intrauterine life may predispose the fetus to an
oncogenic event later in life. This would explain Neoplastic
transformation occurring in hamartomas, developmental vestiges
heterotopias and dysgenetic tissues. It is postulated that the anomalous
tissues harbor latent oncogens which, under certain environmental
conditions, are activated resulting in malignant transformation of a
tumor.
CLASSIFICATION A formal classification of fetal tumors does not exist. Apart from distinguishing solid from cystic lesions, probably the best classification should be by location. The main compartments of fetal tumors include the following:
SONOGRAPHIC DIAGNOSTIC
APPROACH
The
diagnostic approach for diagnosing fetal tumors in-utero should be based
on three sets of ultrasound signs: 1.
General signs 2.
Organ specific signs 3.
Tumor specific signs The
cardinal principle behind the sonographic diagnosis of fetal tumors is
recognizing the general signs indicating departure from normal fetal
anatomy. The general
sonographic criteria include: 1.
Absence of a normal anatomic structure 2.
A disruption of contour, shape, location, sonographic texture or size, of
a normal anatomic structure. 3.
Presence of an abnormal structure. 4.
Abnormal fetal biometry. 5.
Abnormal fetal motion. 6.
Polyhydramnios. 7.
Hydrops fetalis. Each
of the above listed general criteria should raise the suspicion of an
underlying fetal tumor. Polyhydramnios is an important general sign for fetal tumors. Almost 50% of fetal
tumors are accompanied by severe polyhydramnios. Potential causes for
polyhydramnios in such cases include mechanical obstruction i.e. GIT
tumors, interference with swallowing i.e. goiter or myoblastoma, excessive
production of liquor i.e. sacrococcygeal teratoma, and decreased
resorption by lung tissue in lung pathology. Since in intracranial tumors
polyhydramnios appears in as much as 50% of cases, a central brain effect
may also be encountered. Tumor specific signs include pathologic changes
within the tumor mass, displaying specific sonographic appearance. These
include: calcifications, liquification, organ edema, internal bleeding,
neovascularization and rapid changes in size and texture. It should be
remembered that fetal tumors may metastasize. Organ
specific signs are rare but some sonographic pictures are highly
suspicious of being associated with fetal tumors i.e. cardiomegaly with
huge solid or cystic mass occupying the entire heart suggesting
intrapericardial teratoma. It
should be emphasized that pitfalls in diagnosis may exist. In some cases
normal and abnormal sonographic findings may mimic fetal tumors. Examples
may vary from severe cases of bladder extrophy where the protruding
bladder mass appears as a solid tumor like structure, to rare cases of
fetal scrotal inguinal hernia where bowel loops occupy the scrotum
appearing as huge masses. Apart
from ultrasound, other diagnostic tests may be used. Imaging techniques
may include x-ray and MRI. X-ray methods will not provide superior
information that sonography has not provided. Even brain CT, in cases of
brain tumors is not superior to the detailed sonographic imaging. Magnetic
resonance imaging, as a noninvasive nonionizing imaging modality is the
primary choice when an alternative to ultrasound is required
(9). However,
MRI usage is limited to the third trimester and in cases of polyhydramnios
(as in neoplastic cases) fetal motions restrict to a minimum visualization
of both normal and abnormal anatomy. Rapid
karyotype should be evaluated in all cases of suspected fetal tumors
since, malignant tumors tend to acquire chromosome changes
(10). Fetal
tissue biopsy may be carried out in cases where the ultrasonic diagnosis
is uncertain and histology will provide the ultimate diagnosis. PROGNOSIS AND OBSTETRIC MANAGEME
|
||
| 1. | Court Brown W.M., Doll, R., Hill, A.B. Incidence of leukemia after exposure to diagnostic radiation in utero. BMJ 1960; 2:1539. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 2. | Durante F. Nesso fisio-patologico tra la struttura dei nei materni e la genesi di alcuni tumori maligni. Arch Memor Observ Chir Prat 1874;11:217. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 3. | Cohnheim J. Lecture on general pathology, Vol. 2. The New Syndenham Society, London, 1889. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 4. | Bolande
R.P. Cellular aspects of developmental pathology. Lea & fabriger,
Philadelphia, 1967, pp. 88-143. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 5. | Scott
R.E., Wille J.J. Jr., Wier M.L. Mechanisms for the initiation and promotion of
carcinogenesis. A review and a new concept. Mayo Clin Proc 1984; 59:107. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 6. | Knudson
A.G. Mutagenesis and embryonal carcinogenesis. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1979;
51:19. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 7. | Bolande
R.P. Benignity of neonatal tumors and concept of cancer regression in early
life. Am J Dis Child 1971; 122:12. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 8. | DiPaolo J.A., Kotin P. Teratogenesis-oncogenesis: a study of possible relationships. Arch Pathol 1966; 81:3. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 9. | Hricak,
H. Obstetrics. in Magnetic Resonance imaging of the body. Higgins C.B. and
Hricak H., Editors, Raven Press, New York, 1987, p. 525. |
- Back to text - |
|
| 10. | Hecht,
F., Grix, A. JR., Hecht, B.K. Direct prenatal chromosome diagnosis of a
malignancy. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 1984; 11:107. |
- Back to text - |
Head & brain | Face & neck | Thorax | Abdomen | Other Tumors | Contact | Registry
Forum | References | Introduction | Conclusion | Home
Geomist Sites © 1999