Complete versus Partial Molar Pregnancies: A Global Systematic Review of Risk Predictors, Radiologic Findings, and Maternal Prognosis
Keywords:
Complete molar pregnancies are associated with higher β-hCG levels, diffuse hydropic villi, and greater risk of post-molar gestational trophoblastic neoplasiaAbstract
Background: Hydatidiform mole, encompassing complete and partial molar pregnancies, remains a distinctive subset of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD) with variable clinical and prognostic outcomes. Despite advances in imaging and molecular diagnostics, distinguishing complete from partial forms remains a clinical challenge with significant implications for maternal prognosis. This systematic review aimed to synthesise global evidence on epidemiologic risk predictors, radiologic findings, and maternal outcomes associated with complete versus partial molar pregnancies.
Methods: A systematic review of English-language studies published between January 2000 and June 2025 was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase identified observational, cohort, and meta-analytic studies comparing complete and partial molar pregnancies. Data were extracted on demographic risk predictors, ultrasonographic findings, β-hCG trends, and maternal complications including gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results were qualitatively synthesised with textual tables.
Findings: Thirty-eight studies encompassing 14,642 patients were included. Advanced maternal age (>35 years), Asian ethnicity, and a prior molar pregnancy were significant predictors of complete moles. Partial moles were more commonly associated with spontaneous conception in younger women. Ultrasonographically, complete moles exhibited diffuse vesicular patterns (“snowstorm” appearance) and absence of fetal tissue, whereas partial moles showed focal cystic changes or a malformed fetus. The incidence of post-molar GTN was markedly higher after complete moles (15–20%) compared with partial moles (1–5%). Maternal complications including pre-eclampsia, thyrotoxicosis, and haemorrhage occurred predominantly in complete molar pregnancies.
Interpretation: Complete molar pregnancies carry substantially greater oncologic and obstetric risks than partial forms. Early differentiation using combined radiologic, biochemical, and genetic assessment is essential for guiding management and follow-up. Integration of molecular genotyping into diagnostic protocols may improve prognostic stratification globally.
Funding: No specific funding was received for this study
Downloads
References
Braga A, Coutinho L, Chagas M, Soares JP. Molar pregnancy: Early diagnosis, clinical management, and the role of referral centres. Diagnostics. 2025;15(15):1953.
Capozzi VA, Butera D, Armano G, Monfardini L. Obstetric outcomes after complete and partial molar pregnancy: Review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;263:123–131.
Darling AJ, Albright BB, Strickland KC. Molar pregnancy: Epidemiology, diagnosis, management, surveillance. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2022;11(4):210–220.
Jauniaux E, Burton GJ. Pathophysiology of hydatidiform mole: Genetic and epigenetic perspectives. Placenta. 2011;32:100–105.
Mangla M, Kaur H, Khoiwal K. Partial mole with coexistent live fetus: A systematic review of case reports. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2022;23(2):83–91.
Memtsa M, Johns J, Jurkovic D, Ross JA. Diagnosis and outcome of hydatidiform moles in missed-miscarriage: A cohort-study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;256:72–79.
Salmeri N, Pizzetti A, Grassi E, Cioffi R. Multiple pregnancy with complete hydatidiform mole and coexisting normal fetus: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025;65(3):410–423.
Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Berkowitz RS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Lancet. 2010;376(9742):717–729.
Stamatopoulos N, Vaquero ME. Pre-operative classification of molar pregnancy: How good is ultrasound? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(5):754–760.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
