Further light on diagnosis of Brenner tumor

Correspondence

Further Light on Diagnosis of Brenner Tumor To the Editors: In July, 1957, we reported a case of an unusually large Brenner tumor (Am. J. Obst. 8.5 Gynec. 74: 207, 1957). Since then I have received correspondence from two sources suggesting that this may be a metastatic ovarian tumor similar to that described by Krukcnberg Because of this doubt I requested reconsideration of or that this may be an adenofibroma. this case by the Registry of Ovarian Tumors of the American Gynecological Society. With

Dr.

J. Donald

Woodruff’s

kind

permission,

I quote

from

his letter

of Jan.

7, 1958:

“The impressions of Dr. Novak and of Dr. Ronald Greene express my opinion most completely. Dr. Novak, as you know, felt that this was a Brenner tumor, and Dr. Greene, felt that it was an adenofibroma with metaplasia. Since there is little doubt at the present, time that Brenner tumors arise as a metaplastic process from some pre-existing adenomatoua formation, I feel that either one of these opinions would be quite acceptable, and would bc, essentially the same. ’ ’ that

Inasmuch as this case this information should

did not turn out be brought to the

to be as clear-cut attention of the

as one might readers of this I>OLX

FRANKFORD HOSPITAL FRANKFORD AVENUE AND WAKELING PHILADELPHIA 24, PENNSYLVANIA FEB *>27 1958 *

STREET

1373

H.

desire, JOCRNAI,.

AVERBACH,

11I.D.

I feel