Modelo CBCRisk para determinar el riesgo de cáncer de mama contralateral en el cáncer de mama esporádico / CBCRisk model to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer in sporadic breast cancer

Introducción: La mayoría de los cánceres de mama (CM) se diagnostican en mujeres sin antecedentes familiares y no portadoras de mutaciones de riesgo. En las últimas décadas se ha producido un aumento de mastectomías profilácticas contralaterales (MPC) en estas pacientes. El CBCRisk es un modelo que calcula el riesgo absoluto de cáncer de mama contralateral (CMC) y pretende servir para el asesoramiento de pacientes con CM esporádico sobre la MPC. Método: Análisis observacional retrospectivo de pacientes con un cáncer de mama esporádico sometidas a MPC durante 2017-2019. Análisis descriptivo, comparativo y de regresión logística univariante para identificar factores predictivos de LMAR y/o CMC oculto. Evaluación del modelo CBCRisk publicado en 2017 y distintos valores límite para la recomendación de MPC. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 42 pacientes. Incidencia de LMAR y cáncer oculto (CO) menor que la descrita en la literatura (9,52% LMAR, 2,38% CO). Ninguna de las variables evaluadas alcanzó significación estadística para la predicción de lesiones. El valor de CBCRisk a cinco años medio en pacientes con hallazgos patológicos fue de 2,08 (DE 0,97), superior al CBCRisk medio del conjunto (1,87 ± 0,91) y del subgrupo de MPC sin hallazgos patológicos (1,84 ± 0,91). Solo el CBCRisk ≥ 3 resultó significativo (p = 0,04) para la predicción de hallazgos patológicos. Conclusión: Las pacientes con CM esporádico deben ser adecuadamente informadas de los riesgos y beneficios estimados de la MPC. El CBCRisk puede ser útil para el asesoramiento de estas pacientes, pero precisa validación en cohortes más amplias y prospectivas. (AU)

Introduction: The great majority of breast cancer (BC) cases are diagnosed in women who have no known family history of the disease and are not carriers of any risk mutation. During the past few decades an increase in the number of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been produced in these patients. The CBCRisk model calculates the absolute risk of suffering from contralateral breast cancer (CBC); thus, it can be used to counselling patients with sporadic breast cancer. Method: An observational, retrospective study including sporadic breast cancer patients treated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has been conducted between 2017 and 2019. A descriptive and comparative study with one variation of logistic regression has been carried out in order to identify predictive factors of occult tumors (OT) and medium/high risk damage (MHRD). Evaluation of the CBCRisk model published in 2017 and different limit values for the CPM recommendation. Results: 42 patients were selected. Incidence of MHRD and OT was lower than that described in the literatura (9.52% MHRD, 2.38% OT). None of the evaluated variables reached statistical significance for predicting injuries. The average value of CBCRisk 5 years ahead found in patients with pathological findings was 2.08 (SD 0.97), higher than the average value of the whole group (1.87 ± 0.91) and the subgroup without pathological findings (1.84 ± 0.91). Only values ≥ 3 for CBCRisk were considered statistically significant (p = 0.04) for the prediction of histological lesions. Conclusion: Patients with sporadic breast cancer should be adequately informed about the estimated risks and benefits of undergoing a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The CBCRisk may be useful for the counseling of these patients, but it requires validation in larger and prospective cohorts. (AU)

Mastectomía contralateral profiláctica con reconstrucción inmediata en pacientes con cáncer de mama unilateral sin mutación germinal en BRCA1/2 / Prophylactic contralateral mastectomy with immediate reconstruction in patients with unilateral breast cancer without germline BRCA1/2 mutations

Introducción No existe un consenso sobre las indicaciones de mastectomía contralateral en pacientes diagnosticadas de cáncer de mama unilateral sin mutación germinal en BRCA1/2. Estudios previos han identificado algunos factores que pueden influir en la toma de la decisión dependientes del tumor, como el tamaño o histología, de la paciente, como la edad, y de la cirugía como la posibilidad de realizar una reconstrucción inmediata o la experiencia del cirujano.MétodosEstudio retrospectivo de una cohorte de 176 pacientes diagnosticadas de CM entre 2010 y 2016 a las que se les realizó cirugía mamaria. Se ha analizado la asociación de características del tumor y de la paciente con la toma de decisión de realizar mastectomía contralateral (MC) o no-MC. Asimismo, se han analizado los datos relacionados con la cirugía y la recurrencia por grupos mediante la curva de incidencia acumulada y el test de Gray.ResultadosEl número de MC se ha incrementado en nuestro centro. No hemos encontrado diferencias significativas en el desarrollo de complicaciones posquirúrgicas entre los 2 grupos de pacientes, pero sí en la estancia hospitalaria, siendo superior para MC. También hemos observado diferencias entre ambas cohortes en edad y tipo de tumor, siendo la MC más frecuente en aquellas pacientes más jóvenes y subtipo luminal A. Hemos hallado diferencias en la incidencia acumulada de recidiva entre ambos subgrupos (p=0,034).ConclusionesEn nuestra cohorte la MC se realiza más frecuentemente en pacientes más jóvenes y con cáncer de mama luminal A.(AU)

Introduction There is no consensus on the indications for contralateral mastectomy (CM) in patients diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer without germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Prior studies have identified some factors that could influence decision-making. These factors include tumoural size and histological type; patient-related factors, such as age; and surgical factors such as the possibility of immediate reconstruction and the surgeon's experience.MethodsRetrospective study of a cohort of 176 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2010 and 2016 who underwent breast surgery. We analysed the association between tumoural and patient-related characteristics with the decision to perform CM or not. We also analysed data related to surgery and recurrence by groups by using the cumulative incidence curve and the Gray test.ResultsThe number of CM has increased in our centre. We found no significant differences in the occurrence of post-surgical complications between the two patient groups but length of hospital stay was higher in CM. We also found differences between the two cohorts in age and tumoural type, with CM being more frequent in younger patients and those with luminal A subtype. Differences were found in the cumulative incidence of recurrence between subgroups (p=0.034).ConclusionsIn our cohort, CM was more frequent in younger patients and in those with luminal A breast cancer.(AU)

CBCRisk model to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer in sporadic breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The great majority of breast cancer (BC) cases are diagnosed in women who have no known family history of the disease and are not carriers of any risk mutation. During the past few decades an increase in the number of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been produced in these patients. The CBCRisk model calculates the absolute risk of suffering from contralateral breast cancer (CBC); thus, it can be used to counselling patients with sporadic breast cancer. METHOD: An observational, retrospective study including sporadic breast cancer patients treated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has been conducted between 2017 and 2019. A descriptive and comparative study with one variation of logistic regression has been carried out in order to identify predictive factors of occult tumors (OT) and medium/high risk damage (MHRD). Evaluation of the CBCRisk model published in 2017 and different limit values for the CPM recommendation. RESULTS: 42 patients were selected. Incidence of MHRD and OT was lower than that described in the literatura (9.52%MHRD, 2.38%OT). None of the evaluated variables reached statistical significance for predicting injuries. The average value of CBCRisk 5 years ahead found in patients with pathological findings was 2.08 (DE 0.97), higher than the average value of the whole group (1.87 ± 0.91) and the subgroup without pathological findings (1.84 ± 0.91). Only values >3 for CBCRisk were considered statistically significant (P = .04) for the prediction of histological lesions. CONCLUSION: Patients with sporadic breast cancer should be adequately informed about the estimated risks and benefits of undergoing a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The CBCRisk may be useful for the counseling of these patients, but it requires validation in larger and prospective cohorts.

Mastectomía preservadora de piel con colgajo dermograso desepitelizado (técnica de Spira modificada) y reconstrucción mediante implante directo / Nipple sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct-to implant reconstruction

Introducción: La técnica de Spira es un tipo de mastectomía preservadora de piel que permite la reconstrucción inmediata (RMI), ideal en mamas ptósicas. Si bien, persiste controversia sobre resultados oncológicos en el cáncer de mama. El objetivo es analizar complicaciones, secuelas cosméticas, causas de reintervención y resultados oncológicos. Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de pacientes intervenidas durante 2003-2018 en nuestro centro. La población de estudio la constituyen pacientes con carcinoma de mama o sometidas a mastectomía profiláctica por alto riesgo, en las que se realizó una mastectomía preservadora de piel con colgajo dermograso desepitelizado (técnica de Spira modificada) y reconstrucción mediante implante directo. Se analiza la presencia de complicaciones precoces y tardías, secuelas, recidiva tumoral y supervivencia. Resultados: Se realizaron 247 mastectomías con reconstrucción en 139 pacientes, 216 bilaterales (87,4%) y 31 unilaterales (12,5%); 121 terapéuticas (49%) y 126 profilácticas (51%). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 81 meses. Se observaron complicaciones en un 16,2%; necrosis cutánea en 5,3% y cinco casos de necrosis del CAP (2%). La tasa de reintervención por secuelas cosméticas fue del 17,4% (la más frecuente fue contractura capsular 11,3%) y, de ellas, el 39,3% recibieron RT. La tasa de recidiva fue del 14% (0,8% cutánea, 3,3% locorregional y 9,9% a distancia). Ocho pacientes fallecieron (6,6%). La SLE y SG fue del 92,6% y 93,3% a cinco años. Conclusión: La técnica de Spira constituye una opción segura y ofrece buenos resultados cosméticos y oncológicos como tratamiento y profilaxis de cáncer de mama en mamas ptósicas de moderado a gran tamaño. (AU)

Introduction: Spira technique is a type of nipple-sparing mastectomy that allows immediate reconstruction (IBR), ideal for ptosic breasts. Although, controversy persists regarding oncological results in breast cancer. The aim is to analyze complications, cosmetic outcomes, causes of reoperation and oncological results. Methods: Retrospective observational analysis of patients undergone surgery during 2003-2018 in our center. Study population is based on patients with breast carcinoma or undergoing prophylactic mastectomy due to high-risk, in which a skin-sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct to implant reconstruction was performed. Short and long-term complications, sequelae, tumor recurrence and survival rates are analyzed. Results: A total of 247 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction in 139 patients, 216 bilateral (87.4%) and 31 unilateral (12.5%) were performed. 121 therapeutic (49%) and 126 prophylactic (51%). Median follow-up 81 months. Complications were observed in 16.2%; skin necrosis 5.3% and 5 cases of NAC necrosis (2%). Reoperation rate due to cosmetic sequelae was 17.4% (capsular contracture was the most frequent,11.3%) and a 39.3% of these patients have received RT. Recurrence of 14% (0.8% skin, 3.3% locoregional and 9.9% metastatic), 8 patients died (6.6%). Rates of FSD and OS were 92.6% and 93.3% respectively. Conclusion: Spira mastectomy is a safe option and provides good cosmetic and oncologic results as breast cancer treatment and prophylaxis in moderate-large ptosic breasts. (AU)

Nipple sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct-to implant reconstruction. / Mastectomía preservadora de piel con colgajo dermograso desepitelizado (técnica de Spira modificada) y reconstrucción mediante implante directo.

INTRODUCTION: Spira technique is a type of nipple-sparing mastectomy that allows immediate reconstruction (IBR), ideal for ptosic breasts. Although, controversy persists regarding oncological results in breast cancer. The aim is to analyze complications, cosmetic outcomes, causes of reoperation and oncological results. METHODS: Retrospective observational analysis of patients undergone surgery during 2003-2018 in our center. Study population is based on patients with breast carcinoma or undergoing prophylactic mastectomy due to high-risk, in which a skin-sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct to implant reconstruction was performed. Short and long-term complications, sequelae, tumor recurrence and survival rates are analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 247 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction in 139 patients, 216 bilateral (87.4%) and 31 unilateral (12.5%) were performed. 121 therapeutic (49%) and 126 prophylactic (51%). Median follow-up 81 months. Complications were observed in 16.2%; skin necrosis 5.3% and 5 cases of NAC necrosis (2%). Reoperation rate due to cosmetic sequelae was 17.4% (capsular contracture was the most frequent,11.3%) and a 39.3% of these patients have received RT. Recurrence of 14% (0.8% skin, 3.3% locoregional and 9.9% metastatic), 8 patients died (6.6%). Rates of FSD and OS were 92.6% and 93.3% respectively. CONCLUSION: Spira mastectomy is a safe option and provides good cosmetic and oncologic results as breast cancer treatment and prophylaxis in moderate-large ptosic breasts.

CBCRisk model to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer in sporadic breast cancer. / Modelo CBCRisk para determinar el riesgo de cáncer de mama contralateral en el cáncer de mama esporádico.

INTRODUCTION: The great majority of breast cancer (BC) cases are diagnosed in women who have no known family history of the disease and are not carriers of any risk mutation. During the past few decades an increase in the number of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been produced in these patients. The CBCRisk model calculates the absolute risk of suffering from contralateral breast cancer (CBC); thus, it can be used to counselling patients with sporadic breast cancer. METHOD: An observational, retrospective study including sporadic breast cancer patients treated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has been conducted between 2017 and 2019. A descriptive and comparative study with one variation of logistic regression has been carried out in order to identify predictive factors of occult tumors (OT) and medium/high risk damage (MHRD). Evaluation of the CBCRisk model published in 2017 and different limit values for the CPM recommendation. RESULTS: 42 patients were selected. Incidence of MHRD and OT was lower than that described in the literatura (9.52% MHRD, 2.38% OT). None of the evaluated variables reached statistical significance for predicting injuries. The average value of CBCRisk 5 years ahead found in patients with pathological findings was 2.08 (SD 0.97), higher than the average value of the whole group (1.87 ± 0.91) and the subgroup without pathological findings (1.84 ± 0.91). Only values ≥ 3 for CBCRisk were considered statistically significant (p = 0.04) for the prediction of histological lesions. CONCLUSION: Patients with sporadic breast cancer should be adequately informed about the estimated risks and benefits of undergoing a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The CBCRisk may be useful for the counseling of these patients, but it requires validation in larger and prospective cohorts.

Mastectomía ahorradora de piel y pezón en carcinoma ductal in situ. Seguridad oncológica a 10 años / Nipple-sparing mastectomy in ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncological results over a 10-year period

OBJETIVO: El objetivo es evaluar la seguridad oncológica a 10 años de la mastectomía ahorradora de piel y pezón (MAP) en pacientes con carcinoma ductal in situ (CDIS). MÉTODO: Análisis observacional retrospectivo. Se realizaron 35 MAP en pacientes con CDIS durante 2005-2018. Evaluamos resultados histológicos, oncológicos y de morbilidad. RESULTADOS: Las indicaciones más frecuentes fueron márgenes afectos tras tumorectomía (31,5%), multifocalidad/multicéntricidad (22,8%), tumor >3 cm (8,6%) correlación desfavorable tamaño tumoral/mama (8,6%) y decisión de la paciente (8,6%). La técnica más usada fue incisión lateral externa en 11 pacientes, seguida de técnica de Spira en nueve casos. La presencia de CDIS se confirmó en 22 pacientes y en 11 no se encontró tumor en la pieza de mastectomía. La tasa de complicaciones fue 22,8%. Tras una mediana de seguimiento de 104 meses (DE 69,9) no se observó necrosis del pezón. Un 20% de pacientes precisó reintervención a largo plazo. Once pacientes (31,4%) recibieron tratamiento adyuvante (QT y/o RT). Solamente una paciente presentó recurrencia local (2,8%) 28 meses tras la intervención. Una paciente presentó metástasis tras 78 meses de SLE. Las tasas de SLE y SG fueron 94,3% y 97,22%. El análisis univariante mostró dos factores de riesgo de recurrencia: edad <40 [OR (IC95) 2,529 (1,230 - 5,199)] y márgenes afectos [OR (IC95) 5,242 (2,041 - 13,464)]. CONCLUSIÓN: La MAP es factible y segura en pacientes con CDIS no candidatas a cirugía conservadora

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in patients with ductal in situ carcinoma (DCIS) over a 10-year period. METHOD: Retrospective observational analysis. A total of 35 NSM were performed in patients with DCIS from 2005 - 2018. We assessed the histological, oncological and morbidity results. RESULTS: The most frequent indications were margin involvement after lumpectomy (31.5%), multifocality / multicentricity (22.8%), tumour size >3 cm (8.6%) unfavourable tumour / breast size correlation (8.6%) and patient choice (8.6%). The most commonly used technique was external lateral incision in 11 patients, followed by the Spira technique in 9 patients. DCIS was confirmed in 22 patients and no tumour was found in mastectomy specimen in 11 patients. The complication rate was 22.8%. After a median follow-up of 104 months (SD 69.9) there was no nipple necrosis. In all, 20% of the patients required long-term reintervention. Eleven patients (31.4%) underwent adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy and / or radiotherapy). Only one patient showed local recurrence (2.8%) 28 months after the intervention. One patient developed metastases after 78 months of disease-free survival (DFS). DFS and overall survival rates were 94.3% and 97.22%. Univariate analysis showed two risk factors for recurrence: age <40 years [OR (95% CI) 2.529 (1.230-5.199)] and margin involvement [OR (95% CI) 5.242 (2.041 - 13.464)]. CONCLUSION: NSM is safe and feasible in patients with DCIS who are not candidates for conservative surgery

Reconstrucción inmediata mediante implante directo tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante. ¿Es una práctica segura? / Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option?

Introducción: La reconstrucción inmediata (RMI) tras mastectomía en pacientes que han recibido quimioterapia neoadyuvante (QTNA) sigue siendo controvertida. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar y comparar resultados oncológicos y las tasas de complicaciones y reintervención en pacientes sometidas a QTNA y un grupo control. Métodos: Análisis observacional retrospectivo de casos-controles. Pacientes con cáncer de mama intervenidas de mastectomía bilateral con RMI (MBRMI) mediante prótesis directa durante el periodo 2000-2016. Grupo que recibió QTNA emparejadas máximo 1:5 respecto a las pacientes sin QTNA (grupo control). Evaluamos diferencias entre grupos mediante test χ2 o Fisher (variables cualitativas), U de Mann-Whitney o t de Student (variables cuantitativas). Análisis de supervivencia mediante curvas de Kaplan-Meier y test de log-rank (SPSS 22.0). Resultados: Un total de 171 pacientes con MBRMI, 62 pacientes (36,3%) tras QTNA y 109 pacientes (63,7%) en grupo control sin QTNA. Mediana de seguimiento de 52,0 (RIQ: 23,0-94,0) meses. La indicación para practicar una MBRMI más frecuente en ambos grupos es la elección de la paciente (32,7%). No hay diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a tasa de complicaciones (24,2% en el grupo QTNA y 19,3% en el grupo control [p = 0,44]). Sí existen diferencias en resultados oncológicos. Las pacientes del grupo QTNA tienen 3 veces más riesgo que las pacientes del grupo control de presentar recidiva en un momento determinado del tiempo (3,009 [1,349-6,713]) según el análisis univariante. Conclusiones: La RMI mediante prótesis directa tras mastectomías ahorradoras de piel es una opción viable de tratamiento para pacientes con cáncer de mama que reciben QTNA

Introduction: Immediate reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare oncological results as well as complication and reoperation rates in patients undergoing NACT and a control group. Methods: Retrospective observational case-control study of patients with breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and direct-to-implant IBR (BMIBR) from 2000-2016. The group that received NACT was matched 1:5 to patients without NACT (Control group). We evaluated differences between groups using the χ2 or Fisher test (qualitative variables), Mann-Whitney U or Student's t-test (quantitative variables). The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test (SPSS 22.0). Results: The study included a total of 171 patients with BMIBR: 62 patients (36.3%) after NACT and 109 patients (63.7%) in the control group without NACT. Median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR: 23.0-94.0) months. In both groups, the indication for BMIBR was patient choice (32.7%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of complication rate (24.2% in the NACT group and 19.3% in the control group [P = .44]), but differences in oncological results were found. Patients in the NACT Group had three times more risk of recurrence at a given time than patients in the control group (3.009 [1.349-6.713]) according to the univariate analysis. Conclusions: Direct-to-implant IBR after skin-sparing mastectomy is a viable option for breast cancer patients undergoing NACT

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option? / Reconstrucción inmediata mediante implante directo tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante. ¿Es una práctica segura?

INTRODUCTION: Immediate reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare oncological results as well as complication and reoperation rates in patients undergoing NACT and a control group. METHODS: Retrospective observational case-control study of patients with breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and direct-to-implant IBR (BMIBR) from 2000-2016. The group that received NACT was matched 1:5 to patients without NACT (Control group). We evaluated differences between groups using the χ2 or Fisher test (qualitative variables), Mann-Whitney U or Student's t-test (quantitative variables). The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test (SPSS 22.0). RESULTS: The study included a total of 171 patients with BMIBR: 62 patients (36.3%) after NACT and 109 patients (63.7%) in the control group without NACT. Median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR: 23.0-94.0) months. In both groups, the indication for BMIBR was patient choice (32.7%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of complication rate (24.2% in the NACT group and 19.3% in the control group [P=.44]), but differences in oncological results were found. Patients in the NACT Group had three times more risk of recurrence at a given time than patients in the control group (3.009 [1.349-6.713]) according to the univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-implant IBR after skin-sparing mastectomy is a viable option for breast cancer patients undergoing NACT.

Treatment of Implant Exposure due to Skin Necroses after Skin Sparing Mastectomy: Initial Experiences Using a Not Selective Random Epigastric Flap.

Breast prostheses exposure is probably the most devastating complication after a skin sparing mastectomy (SSM) and implant-based, one-stage, breast reconstruction. This complication may occur in the immediate post-operative period or in the weeks and even months after the procedure. In most cases, the cause is poor skin coverage of the implant due to skin necrosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight consecutive cases of implant exposure (or risk of exposure) due to skin necrosis in SSM patients over a period of 5 years, all patients were treated using a random epigastric rotation flap, executed by the same medical team. RESULTS: A random epigastric flap (island or conventional rotation flap) was used to cover the skin defect. All the patients completed the procedure and all prostheses were saved; there were no cases of flap necrosis or infection. CONCLUSIONS: Cases of skin necrosis after SSM and immediate implant reconstruction, in which the implant is at risk of exposure, can be successfully treated with a random epigastric rotation flap.

[Postoperative intra-abdominal foreign body resemblance to neoplasm. Report of a case and review of the bibliography]. / Cuerpo extraño intra-abdominal postquirúrgico simulador de neoplasia. Presentación de un caso y revisión de la bibliografía.

INTRODUCTION: Gossypibomas or textilomas are materials remain in the abdomen after surgery. It is very difficult to assess its impact due to medico-legal implications, hence the interest in the publication of this type of pathology. CLINICAL CASE: Women of 76 years who had undergone a hysterectomy and double anexectomy 6 months before admission to our hospital, apparently without perioperative complications. When she was assessed in our hospital she had a clinical picture simulating a malignancy. In our case, the patient had signs and symptoms of advanced intra-abdominal malignancy, such as chronic anemia, significant weight loss and palpable abdominal mass. The diagnostic procedure combined computed tomography and colonoscopy, aiming to find the signs of intra-abdominal gossypiboma. Three bowel resections were performed to extract the foreign body, with satisfactory postoperative results and remaining asymptomatic to date. CONCLUSION: Intra-abdominal gossypibomas are exceptional, although the diagnosis is made through imaging and, if suspected GI neoplasm, endoscopic studies. The primary differential diagnosis must be made with intra-abdominal malignancies.