Endometrial cancer commonly metastasizes to the pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, vagina, peritoneum, and lungs. Unusual sites of metastasis include the bone, brain, abdominal wall, muscles, and intra-abdominal organs. To our knowledge, there have been no documented cases of synchronous or metachronous metastasis of endometrial cancer to the renal pelvis or colon. Metastatic tumors in the renal pelvis and colon indicate nonspecific radiological findings, making them difficult to distinguish from primary tumors. We describe a case of a 55-year-old female previously treated for endometrial cancer, who was subsequently found to have metastatic masses in the renal pelvis and colon. The two masses were initially misidentified as primary urothelial carcinoma and colon adenocarcinoma.

Endometrial cancer commonly metastasizes to the pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, vagina, peritoneum, and lungs. Unusual sites of metastasis include the bone, brain, abdominal wall, muscles, and intra-abdominal organs. To our knowledge, there have been no documented cases of synchronous or metachronous metastasis of endometrial cancer to the renal pelvis or colon. Metastatic tumors in the renal pelvis and colon indicate nonspecific radiological findings, making them difficult to distinguish from primary tumors. We describe a case of a 55-year-old female previously treated for endometrial cancer, who was subsequently found to have metastatic masses in the renal pelvis and colon. The two masses were initially misidentified as primary urothelial carcinoma and colon adenocarcinoma.

Endometrial cancer commonly metastasizes to the pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, vagina, peritoneum, and lungs. Unusual sites of metastasis include the bone, brain, abdominal wall, muscles, and intra-abdominal organs. To our knowledge, there have been no documented cases of synchronous or metachronous metastasis of endometrial cancer to the renal pelvis or colon. Metastatic tumors in the renal pelvis and colon indicate nonspecific radiological findings, making them difficult to distinguish from primary tumors. We describe a case of a 55-year-old female previously treated for endometrial cancer, who was subsequently found to have metastatic masses in the renal pelvis and colon. The two masses were initially misidentified as primary urothelial carcinoma and colon adenocarcinoma.

Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy. Owing to its rarity and nonspecific symptoms, diagnosing retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy at the initial presentation poses a significant challenge. Typically, the diagnosis relies on non-radiation imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography and MRI, whereas CT is infrequently used. Herein, we report a rare case of a retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy, which was diagnosed using CT.

Rectal syphilis is a rare form of syphilis presentation and its symptoms, endoscopic and radiologic findings are nonspecific. Rectal syphilis typically presents with features such as concentric rectal wall thickening, mucosal hyperemia, perirectal fat stranding, and lymphadenopathy. Rectal cancer exhibits asymmetric wall thickening and lymph node necrosis, aiding in the differentiation between these two diseases. However, due to the considerable overlap in their respective manifestations, distinguishing between rectal syphilis and rectal cancer is extremely challenging without considering the patient’s medical history. Rectal syphilis often leads to unnecessary tests or delayed treatment, as it can be mistaken for other benign diseases such as inflammatory bowel diseases in addition to rectal cancer. In this case report, we aim to provide a detailed report on the endoscopic, imaging, and pathological findings based on our experience with a case of suspected rectal malignancy that turned out to be rectal syphilis.

Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy. Owing to its rarity and nonspecific symptoms, diagnosing retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy at the initial presentation poses a significant challenge. Typically, the diagnosis relies on non-radiation imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography and MRI, whereas CT is infrequently used. Herein, we report a rare case of a retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy, which was diagnosed using CT.

Rectal syphilis is a rare form of syphilis presentation and its symptoms, endoscopic and radiologic findings are nonspecific. Rectal syphilis typically presents with features such as concentric rectal wall thickening, mucosal hyperemia, perirectal fat stranding, and lymphadenopathy. Rectal cancer exhibits asymmetric wall thickening and lymph node necrosis, aiding in the differentiation between these two diseases. However, due to the considerable overlap in their respective manifestations, distinguishing between rectal syphilis and rectal cancer is extremely challenging without considering the patient’s medical history. Rectal syphilis often leads to unnecessary tests or delayed treatment, as it can be mistaken for other benign diseases such as inflammatory bowel diseases in addition to rectal cancer. In this case report, we aim to provide a detailed report on the endoscopic, imaging, and pathological findings based on our experience with a case of suspected rectal malignancy that turned out to be rectal syphilis.

Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy. Owing to its rarity and nonspecific symptoms, diagnosing retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy at the initial presentation poses a significant challenge. Typically, the diagnosis relies on non-radiation imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography and MRI, whereas CT is infrequently used. Herein, we report a rare case of a retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy, which was diagnosed using CT.

Rectal syphilis is a rare form of syphilis presentation and its symptoms, endoscopic and radiologic findings are nonspecific. Rectal syphilis typically presents with features such as concentric rectal wall thickening, mucosal hyperemia, perirectal fat stranding, and lymphadenopathy. Rectal cancer exhibits asymmetric wall thickening and lymph node necrosis, aiding in the differentiation between these two diseases. However, due to the considerable overlap in their respective manifestations, distinguishing between rectal syphilis and rectal cancer is extremely challenging without considering the patient’s medical history. Rectal syphilis often leads to unnecessary tests or delayed treatment, as it can be mistaken for other benign diseases such as inflammatory bowel diseases in addition to rectal cancer. In this case report, we aim to provide a detailed report on the endoscopic, imaging, and pathological findings based on our experience with a case of suspected rectal malignancy that turned out to be rectal syphilis.

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), characterized by elevated serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and normal free thyroxine levels, usually presents without symptoms, and is often discovered incidentally during routine blood test. The Task Force of the Korean Thyroid Association Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines has established a guideline to evaluate and manage SCH; the guideline emphasizes the implementation of diagnostic criteria based on the TSH reference range for Koreans and focuses on the proven health benefits of levothyroxine (LT4) treatment. Based on the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2015), serum TSH level of 6.8 mIU/L is considered the reference value for SCH. SCH can be categorized as mild (TSH 6.8-10.0 mIU/L) or severe (TSH ＞10.0 mIU/L), and patients are classified as adults (age ＜70 years) or elderly patients (age ≥70years) depending on the health effects of LT4 treatment. An initial increase in serum TSH levels should be reassessed with a subsequent measurement, along with the thyroid peroxidase antibody test, preferably 2-3 months after the initial evaluation. Usually, LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild SCH in adults; however, treatment is necessary for severe SCH in patients with underlying coronary artery disease or heart failure and can be considered for coexisting dyslipidemia. LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild or even severe SCH in elderly patients, in general. Patients with SCH who receive LT4 treatment, the LT4 dosage should be personalized, and serum TSH levels should be monitored to ensure optimal LT4 dosage (dosage that is neither excessive nor insufficient). Patients with SCH who do not receive LT4 treatment require periodic follow-up at appropriate testing intervals determined by disease severity. The guideline also provides several educational points applicable in clinical settings.