1. Introduction
Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROSCTs) are rare mesenchymal neoplasms uniquely classified within the group of “Mesenchymal tumors specific to the uterus” with “unspecified, borderline, or uncertain behavior” according to the WHO [1] and ICD-O [2] classifications. Their histologic features recapitulate the appearance of ovarian sex cord tumors [1]. The initial UTROSCT description dates back to 1945 when Morehead and Bowman reported a uterine neoplasm closely resembling a granulosa cell tumor in a 44-year-old woman [3]. A defining series published in 1976 by Clement and Scully detailed this novel histopathological entity [4]. Based on the quantity of sex cord elements, these tumors have been categorized into two subtypes: type 1 and type 2. Type 1 tumors, referred to as endometrial stromal tumors with sex cord-like elements (ESTSCLE), display a higher malignant potential compared to type 2 tumors. The latter encompasses classic UTROSCTs, which generally exhibit low-grade malignant potential with typically benign behavior, albeit with occasional recurrences. In 2008, Czernobilsky introduced an immunohistochemical algorithm that established the diagnostic criteria for UTROSCTs [5]. Four antibodies, including Calretinin, Inhibin, CD99, and Melan A, have been recognized as the most characteristic markers for confirming a UTROSCT diagnosis (type 2 tumors), while ESTSCLE typically only expresses a single sex cord marker, predominantly Calretinin [5]. Some authors, noting morphological and molecular distinctions, as well as differing clinical behaviors, argue against conflating ESTSCLE and UTROSCT into a single tumor category [6], leading to some studies excluding ESTSCLE, while others including it. Recent molecular discoveries support considering UTROSCT as a separate entity; however, the cellular precursor of UTROSCT remains unknown [7].
To date, UTROSCT is among the rarest uterine tumor types [1,4,5,7,8], with no literature review covering more than 80 cases. The established knowledge about UTROSCT is summarized in Table 1.
The diagnosis and treatment of UTROSCTs present challenges due to their rarity and the fact that their symptoms and imaging findings closely mimic those of leiomyomas. The impossibility of conducting large prospective studies and the limited feasibility of long-term follow-up observations often lead to intuitive treatment protocols, which can potentially result in overtreatment. Additionally, there is a low (20–25%) but significant risk of malignant progression in an ill-defined subset of UTROSCT cases. Therefore, there is an urgent need to refine histological criteria and prognostic factors by incorporating recent molecular findings. This will enable personalized treatment protocols that avoid overtreatment and reduce patient uncertainty, especially in cases with benign clinical behavior, and will clearly delineate tumors with aggressive potential.
In this review, by analyzing 511 cases from individual reports and case series, we offer the most exhaustive overview of UTROSCT to date. Based on a data set spanning 78 years, including significant advancements from 2022–2023, we emphasize the necessity of updating diagnostic and prognostic criteria to incorporate molecular tumor characteristics. Moreover, we propose new criteria for fertility-sparing treatments, marking a significant contribution in this field. In addition, we report two cases of UTROSCTs, one identified through hysteroscopic biopsy and another during laparoscopic surgery, both of which were managed with laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (BSO).
2. Case Reports
2.1. Case 1
In 2022, a 31-year-old asymptomatic woman was referred to our center (University of Naples Federico II) for a routine gynecological ultrasound check. The patient had two spontaneous deliveries and experienced two spontaneous abortions; therefore, she had no desire for further pregnancies. She reported regular menstrual cycles in terms of duration and quantity and had no family history of cancer. At the time of admission, the patient had a BMI of 23.8 kg/m2. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound examination, performed by an expert ultrasound gynecologist (B.Z.), revealed a normal anteverted uterus with regular margins and an inhomogeneous echo pattern. The endometrial echo pattern was regular with a normal endometrial thickness. Both ovaries appeared regular in size, shape, and echotexture. A well-defined, oval-shaped mass measuring 27.8 × 26.5 × 19 mm occupied the posterior uterine wall. The mass showed regular margins and non-uniform echogenicity due to the presence of some anechoic cystic areas (Figure 1). Moderate edge shadowing was present, while fan-shaped shadowing was absent. On color Doppler ultrasound, the lesion appeared not to be richly vascularized. No pelvic fluid was observed (Figure 2). A diagnostic hysteroscopy performed by the expert hysteroscopist (A.D.S.S.) revealed a regular uterine cavity without myoma imprints.
The radiological examination was performed externally by the patient and then was examined by an expert gynecologist oncologist (G.B.). Pelvic MRI confirmed the presence of an intramural-subserous “myoma” measuring 34 × 30 mm, with a screening intermediate signal T1-T2 and a peripheral ring of low signal T2. The mass was hypovascularized and exhibited a contextual millimeter cystic areola (see Figure 3). A red degeneration of uterine leiomyoma was suspected.
Consequently, a laparoscopic myomectomy was conducted by an experienced gynecological surgeon (P.G.). The exploration of the abdomen and of the pelvis showed no macroscopic abnormalities; however, the uterus appeared irregular in shape for the presence of the uterine posterior mass of about 30 mm (Figure 4). The surgical specimen was extracted using an endobag to prevent dispersion in the abdominal cavity.
Surprisingly, the mass was diagnosed as an UTROSCT upon the final pathological examination. Microscopic examination revealed a hypercellular tumor with a solid growth pattern and focal glandular and trabecular differentiation. The cells were small to medium in size, with scant cytoplasm and regular, ovoid nuclei. Mitotic activity was low, with approximately 2 mitoses per 10 high-power fields, and there was no evidence of necrosis. An infiltrative growth pattern into the myometrium was apparent, and this was suggestive of lymphovascular space invasion.
As described in Table 2, the immunohistochemical examination demonstrated tumor cells positivity for ER, PR, WT1, Calretinin, CD56, CD99, Smooth Muscle Actin, and Desmin, with focal positivity for E-cadherin and p16. The tumor was negative for Cyclin D1, BCOR, EMA, CK7, TTF1, GATA3, Chromogranin, Synaptophysin, Caldesmon, Cathepsin k, and Inhibin. Following the immunohistochemical criteria outlined by Czernobilsky [5], the co-expression of Calretinin and at least one other sex cord marker confirmed the diagnosis of UTROSCT (type 2).
Despite the patient’s young age and her lack of desire for fertility, a total laparoscopic HE with BSO was planned after multidisciplinary consultation.
2.2. Case 2
In 2019, a 58-year-old post-menopausal multiparous woman presented with abnormal vaginal bleeding that did not respond to medical therapy. Sonographic examination revealed an increased uterine volume, with two fibroids located in the anterior and posterior uterine wall, measuring 3.5 cm and 5 cm, respectively, and an endometrial thickness of 8 mm (despite the patient’s postmenopausal status). The woman underwent an ambulatory hysteroscopy (Naples), utilizing a vaginoscopic approach with a 5 mm continuous-flow hysteroscope (Bettocchi Office Hysteroscopes; KARL STORZ, Tuttlingen, Germany) equipped with an incorporating 5-Fr operating channel. During the procedure, an area of suspicion was identified on the anterior wall of the endometrium, measuring 1.5 cm, characterized by an irregular, yellow-colored surface. The presence of diffuse hypervascularization along with areas of necrosis was suggestive of malignancy, and a grasp biopsy was performed (see Figure 5).
The microscopic examination of the tissue revealed stretched and branched endometrial glands, surrounded by cells with abundant and foamy cytoplasm, suggesting the presence of sex cord-like elements. Following the recommendations of the pathology team, a second hysteroscopic examination was conducted to obtain deeper tissue samples. Using a 5-Fr Twizzle Versapoint™ bipolar system (Olympus, Hamburg, Germany) inserted through the operating channel of the hysteroscope, the suspicious area was completely resected (Figure 5D). The subsequent immunohistochemical studies were performed, confirming that the tumor was diffusely positive for Calretinin and Inhibin, focally positive for CD99, and negative for CD10 (see Table 2). Based on the immunohistochemical phenotype suggestive of the presence of sex cord components, the tumor was diagnosed as a UTROSCT (type 2). Staging examinations revealed neither locoregional spread nor distant metastases. Finally, a laparoscopic total HE with BSO was performed by the surgical-gynecological team (G.B. and P.G.), and the final histological diagnosis confirmed UTROSCT. The post-operative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the third post-operative day, with a total regression of the initial symptoms.
Currently, three years after the initial diagnosis, the patient is relapse-free.
3. Literature Review
3.1. Materials and Methods
This exhaustive review meets the criteria of a scoping review as outlined by Paré et al.: (a) a broad scope of questions, (b) a comprehensive search strategy, (c) the inclusion of both conceptual and empirical primary sources, (d) explicit study selection criteria, (e) the absence of quality appraisal, and (f) the lack of meta-analytic tools, distinguishing our review from both narrative and systematic reviews [9]. Its cornerstone is the literature collection compiled by the first author (R.W.) over the last ten years. Consequently, the review was not prospectively registered per protocol. The final literature selection occurred during several rounds of literature searches performed in 2023: an electronic search of databases PubMed, SciELO, and Scopus; the scientific search engine Google Scholar; and publisher platforms such as ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, Taylor & Francis Online, Nature Publishing Group, SAGE Publications, and SpringerLink, was conducted up to November 2023. This was complemented by a meticulous review of reference lists. Our search algorithm combined terms like “uterine tumor resembling ovarian sex cord tumors”, “UTROSCT”, “ESTSCLE”, “sex-cord”, and “sex-cord like” with all relevant counterparts such as “immunohistochemistry”, “diagnosis”, “fertility-sparing”, “treatment”, “myomectomy”, “hysteroscopy”, “laparoscopy”, “ultrasound”, “imaging”, etc. There were no restrictions on language or geographic location. We recorded relevant aspects of each article, with special emphasis on histopathological findings, types of treatment applied, and reported outcomes. Our exclusion criteria included cases with no clinical information for data extraction, such as those lacking details on symptoms and/or survival, as well as duplicate reports. However, conference abstracts providing relevant information (in at least three categories) and published as supplements to established scientific journals were included. Two cases reported as UTROSCTs were excluded due to an immunohistochemical profile and a histological appearance that were not compatible with those of UTROSCT. Age differences between study groups were analyzed using the Student’s t-test, with a two-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using JASP statistical software v.0.17.3 for Windows.
3.2. Characteristics of Included Publications
We selected 104 case reports (studies with up to 3 cases) [3,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112] and 24 case series (including between 4 and 75 cases) [4,6,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134]. For a better readability, the cases are summarized in Table 2 (studies reporting 1–3 cases without recurrence), Table 3 (individual aggressive cases with extrauterine spread or recurrence), Table 4 (all series with more than 4 cases), and Table A1 (detailed data on patients who became pregnant with or after UTROSCT). The publications were mostly in English, two in German [15,79], two in Portuguese [23,48], and one in Spanish [19].
What makes our review the largest available review on UTROSCT is that we identified a total of 511 UTROSCT cases, including 93 individual cases with benign behavior (no extrauterine growth at the first diagnosis or recurrence, or with no reported recurrence) as listed in Table 3, 28 individual cases with aggressive behavior (extrauterine spread or metastasis at first diagnosis, or recurrent disease) listed in Table 4, and a further 373 cases reported in case series (starting with the seminal study by Clement and Scully [4] with 14 cases, up to the largest cohorts by Boyraz et al. [129] with 75 cases and Moore and McCluggage [122] with 34 cases), as shown in Table 5.
The year 2023 could be groundbreaking for UTROSCT research, as until November 2023, six series with a total of 156 cases, focusing on novel genetic and immunohistochemical insights, as well as 7 reports (including the present study) with a total of 8 cases, were published.
Some studies did not differentiate between UTROSCT type 1 and type 2, others included only type 2, and some studies used criteria for sex cord elements different from those of Czernobilsky [5]. In addition, recent research indicates that, in light of genetic heterogeneity, the dichotomous classification may be obsolete. With these facts in mind, we included both types of UTROSCTs to maintain comparability between older and newer studies.
3.3. Patient Characteristics
For patients reported individually, the mean age of women with a non-aggressive disease course (48.7, SD 14.66, range 18–77 years) and malignant disease course (46.8, SD 15.4, range 18–68 years) did not differ significantly (p = 0.53). Women aged 40 or younger accounted for 33% (31/93) of benign cases and 32% (9/28) of clinically aggressive cases. The age distribution is displayed in Figure 6.
The mean age and age range in our evaluation are similar to those reported in the landmark 1976 study by Clement and Scully, as well as in recent case series, e.g., Boyraz et al., 53 years (range 21–84) [129], and Goebel et al., 49.6 years (range 20–74) [125]. The youngest patient (12 years old) and the oldest (86 years old) were reported in the large case series by Moore and McCluggage [122].
The proportion of benign to malignant disease courses in our evaluation was 3:1, acknowledging the possibility of publication bias. There were 19 nulliparous women in the cohort, presenting a therapeutic challenge due to the uncertainty about the safety of fertility-sparing treatments and the dilemma of the potential overtreatment, including unnecessary hysterectomy and oophorectomy [114,127].
3.4. Clinical Presentation
The most common symptom across all ages and menopausal statuses was abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), followed by pelvic pain or abdominal discomfort. In some cases, the tumor was asymptomatic and discovered incidentally during routine check-ups or infertility evaluations [25,50,56]. Hormonal disturbances such as galactorrhea [95], hyperprolactinemia [95,107], or hypercalcemia [20], resulting from ectopic prolactin or PTH-related peptide production, were the initial symptoms in other cases. Notably, in two cases, an emergency involving intraabdominal bleeding from the tumor led to the diagnosis of UTROSCT [89,93].
UTROSCTs typically mimic leiomyomas in their submucosal or intramural presentation. In around 15% of cases, the tumors present as intracavitary polyps. Pretherapeutic curettage sometimes yielded falsely negative results [75,76,111] or abnormal but misleading findings, such as low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LG-ESS) [49,92,110], rhabdoid tumor [52], carcinosarcoma [14], or adenocarcinoma [100]. The value of preoperative targeted biopsy remains uncertain. It can either provide the definitive result (as in our Case 2 or [56]) or be misleading, as in [100], where image-guided omental biopsy revealed high-grade adenocarcinoma suggestive of epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The reason for the uncertainty may be the heterogenous composition of the tumor itself or a sampling error due to the presence of several similar lesions.
In all but one reported cases, the diagnosis of UTROSCT was always unexpected and was made through the evaluation of the final surgical specimen. Intriguingly, the intraoperative appearance (via hysteroscopy or laparoscopy) often did not alter the initial assumption of the lesion being a leiomyoma or a polyp.
In only one case was UTROSCT suspected preoperatively, based on a cervical liquid biopsy. However, even in that case, the diagnosis was facilitated by the presence of a polypoid tumor protruding into the vagina, and it was confirmed using extensive immunohistochemical staining, as the initial diagnosis was “atypical glandular cells consistent with adenocarcinoma, NOS” [69].
The coexistence of UTROSCT with other tumors at the time of surgery was not unusual, mostly with typical leiomyomas [18,27,41,42,43,45,48,60,103], but also with other neoplasms such as a second UTROSCT [29,60], ovarian sex cord stromal tumors [41], gastrointestinal stromal tumors [94], endometrial adenoacanthoma [17], cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [120], or cervical metastasis from breast cancer [40].
Information on the diagnostic utility of tumor markers for UTROSCT is scarce. Elevated CA-125 (up to 2210 U/L in [100]) levels have been occasionally reported [60,88,100,135], linking with extrauterine tumor spread [60,100,110] or accompanying conditions like adenomyosis [135]. Notably, CA-125, HE4, and CEA, which were normal in some reports [66,77,111], are not typical markers for sex cord tumors. Interestingly, serum Inhibin levels, a marker for sex cord tumors, have not been reported, reflecting the oversight of sex cord differentiation during perioperative consideration. Nevertheless, if elevated at the initial diagnosis, tumor markers (CA125, prolactin) might be useful for monitoring recurrence and response to therapy [100,110].
The usefulness of imaging in UTROSCT is limited, presenting no specific sonomorphologic or MRI features that would facilitate preoperative diagnosis. While there are detailed MRI reports, none have resulted in the correct preoperative identification of UTROSCT [17,30,49,71,72,81]. Intratumoral cystic degeneration, intratumoral hemorrhage, and necrosis are often seen on MRI, but are not pathognomonic [81], and can be mistaken for a liquid degeneration within a leiomyoma [63,71]. Unfortunately, imaging has sometimes led to the incorrect suspicions of UTROSCT relapse. For example, Hermsen et al. [49] reported a suspected early myometrial recurrence during pregnancy, which was monitored using MRI until the 34th week of gestation. The patient underwent a cesarean hysterectomy due to the presumed recurrence, but the lesion turned out to be adenomyosis. Carbone et al. [127] described lymphadenectomies performed due to suspected lymph node metastasis on imaging, which were not confirmed histologically.
Few cases were diagnosed with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis (see Table 4). Intraabdominal relapse and pulmonary metastases were the most common relapse sites [4,93,101,114,122]. Among all 511 cases, 18 patients died from or with the disease [4,93,100,111,112,114,122,129,130]. Those who died often experienced rapid disease progression, were metastatic at diagnosis, or progressed despite adjuvant therapies [93,111,112]. This raises the question of whether the application of unproven chemotherapeutic or hormonal therapies in UTROSCT could potentially worsen prognosis. Generally, survival data should be interpreted with caution due to the uncertain degree of underreporting, as follow-up times, when available, were often reported in months rather than years.
3.5. Gross and Ultrastructural Appearances
The mean size of tumors behaving benignly was 5.4 cm (SD: 4 cm, range: 0.9–20 cm), and for those behaving aggressively, it was 6.6 cm (SD: 3 cm, range: 1.5–11 cm), which was not significantly different (p = 0.27). Tumor growth limited to the cervix was observed infrequently, in approximately 10 cases. Most tumors presented as yellow to tan-yellow, tan-pink, or tan-gray masses, occasionally with hemorrhage or cystic areas. Microscopically, most tumors were well-circumscribed, but up to one-quarter exhibited an infiltrative growth pattern [121,129]. By definition, UTROSCTs mainly comprise cells resembling ovarian sex cord elements which are arranged in cords or trabeculae, or form tubular structures with central lumina. Occasional cases demonstrate retiform appearances [116]. Indeed, in the largest series by Boyraz et al., the following architectural patterns were present: cords, diffuse, hollow tubules, nests, trabeculae, retiform, solid tubules, pseudoangiomatoid, pseudopapillary, and whorled [129]. Typically, more than one pattern was seen. Cytologic atypia ranged from absent to mild in the majority of cases, and it was moderate in 21% and moderate-to-severe in 2.7% of tumors [129].
UTROSCTs exhibit a diverse immunohistochemical profile reflecting their complex histogenesis. The widely accepted immunohistochemical signature of UTROSCT is defined by a panel comprising Calretinin, Inhibin, CD99, and Melan A—markers indicative of sex cord lineage. Positivity for Calretinin, in conjunction with at least one other marker from this panel, is diagnostic for UTROSCT, whereas ESTSCLE generally express a single sex cord marker, predominantly Calretinin [5]. Other popular antibodies used in the diagnosis of UTROSCT are those immunoreactive for mesenchymal and epithelial elements, including Vimentin, Desmin, Cytokeratin, Epithelial Membrane Antigen (EMA), CD10, and estrogen/progesterone receptors (ER/PR) [5,41]. However, several studies rely on alternative algorithms [42,96,97,100,101,135,136], considering tumors such as UTROSCT to be negative for Calretinin but positive for other sex cord markers. Nogales et al. emphasize that UTROSCTs are not “a discrete entity but a group of tumors that do not necessarily have a stereotyped morphology and are only defined by comparison with histologically equivalent ovarian tumors. Morphologically, they imperfectly reproduce the histology and immunohistochemistry of a variety of patterns (trabecular, tubular, pseudoglandular, luteinized, etc.) of sex-cord stromal tumors of the ovary. Moreover, some exhibit a mixed sex cord and predominantly myoid phenotype, which can also be part of the tumor proliferation in sex-cord-like structures of UTROSCTs” [137].
Some authors favor CD56 as the most reliable immunohistochemical UTROSCT marker [41,42]. A review on the immunohistochemical features of the 44 cases of UTROSCT reported by Abdullazade et al. showed CD56 expression in 100%, followed by positivity for Calretinin in 94%, AE1/AE3 in 73%, CD10 in 50%, Inhibin in 49%, Desmin in 46%, EMA in 29%, and Caldesmon in 7% of cases [41]. In addition, Stewart et al. explored both older and newer immunohistochemical markers of sex cord-like elements in UTROSCT and confirmed that Calretinin was more sensitive than Inhibin, FOXL2, and steroidogenic factor-1 (SF1), but SF1 was the only marker specific to UTROSCT, as it was negative in all potential histological mimics that were investigated [121]. These results were confirmed by Croce et al., who found that 53% (10/19) of investigated UTROSCT samples exhibited nuclear immunoreactivity with FOXL2, and 58% (11/19) showed nuclear staining with SF1 [123].
Apart from the polyphenotypic histomorphologic appearance of UTROSCT itself, in some cases, UTROSCT displayed partial sarcomatous features [77], myxoid features [87], or osteoid metaplasia [12]. Conversely, UTROSCT elements can be incorporated into other tumors, e.g., adenomyosis [135], true endometrial polyps [138], endometrioid carcinomas [139], or LG-ESS [136,140]. Two intriguing cases reported 32 years apart (1989 and 2021) involved the initial tumors diagnosed (or misdiagnosed?) as LG-ESS, but recurrences with significantly abundant sex cord-like elements met the diagnostic criteria of UTROSCT [92,110]. In the first case, speculation about the misdiagnosis of the initial tumor could be justified (even the report’s title uses of confusing terminology); however, the latter case is substantiated by meticulous molecular analysis showing a UTROSCT-typical genetic rearrangement in the recurrent tumor (GREB1-NCOA2 fusion) [110].
3.6. Gene Fusions in UTROSCT
Recent studies have highlighted the significant role of specific gene fusions in UTROSCT, particularly those combining genes relevant to sex hormone pathways with (co)activator oncogenes. These include estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) and growth regulation by estrogen in breast cancer 1 (GREB1) genes, which fuse with nuclear receptor coactivators NCOA1-3 [76,104,105,124,125,131,134]. GREB1 encodes for a protein driven transcriptionally by estrogen-bound ER, being a crucial component of the canonical estrogen/ER signaling pathway. Binding with estrogen, ESR1 is essential for a broad range of physiological functions, but is also involved in pathologic processes, including breast cancer, endometrial cancer, or osteoporosis [76,104,105,132,133,134]. Mutations in ESR1′s ligand-binding domain have been correlated with resistance to hormone therapy in ER-positive breast cancer. Notably, UTROSCTs with ESR1 rearrangements may be resistant to estrogen blockade as the ER ligand-binding domain is lost in these fusions, potentially explaining the resistance to anti-hormonal treatments reported in relapsed UTROSCT [96,99,112].
The NCOA family, a part of the p160 steroid receptor coactivators (SRC1/2/3), interacts with ligand-dependent hormone nuclear receptors, including estrogen receptor-alpha (ERα). It mediates transcriptional programs promoting cellular proliferation, metabolism, growth, and survival [109]. In UTROSCTs with NCOA rearrangements, the chimeric fusion protein expressed is under the transcriptional control of the 5′ fusion partner promoter, retaining the 3′ NCOA fusion partner’s nuclear receptor co-activator and transcriptional activation domains [105,109,141]. Recent research has specifically focused on NCOA1, NCOA2, and NCOA3 gene fusions in UTROSCT [76,104,105,124,125,131,134]. Bi et al. reported that in recurrent UTROSCT cases, the GREB1::NCOA2 fusion was the most common, accounting for 57% of cases, with GREB1::NCOA1 and ESR1 fusions also detected. These GREB1-rearranged tumors were typically more advanced, larger, and occurred in older patients [132]. Lu et al. reported recurrent NCOA1-3 rearrangements in 87.5% (14/16) of their series, without JAZF1, PHF1, BCOR, or YWHAE rearrangements, underscoring the diagnostic value of these rearrangements in distinguishing UTROSCT from endometrial stromal tumors [131]. In Goebel et al.’s study of 26 UTROSCT cases, NCOA1/3 rearrangement was identified in 81.8% (18/22) of cases, with ESR1-NCOA3 being the most common fusion, followed by GREB1-NCOA1, ESR1-NCOA2, and GREB1-NCOA2 rearrangements. Only one case experienced recurrence 66 months after the initial diagnosis, and this was the only case with a GREB1-NCOA2 fusion [125]. In the recent case series by Quji et al., six types of fusion genes were identified: ESR1::NCOA3 (found in 4 cases), ESR1::NCOA2 (2 cases), ESR1::CITED2 (2 cases), GREB1::NCOA2 (2 cases), GREB1::NCOA1 (1 case), and GREB1::NCOA3 (1 case). Notably, the three cases with recurrence and metastasis were associated with the fusion genes GREB1::NCOA2, ESR1::NCOA3, and ESR1::CITED2 [134]. Additionally, Croce et al. reported a novel translocation t(2;3) involving GREB1 and CTNNB1 (encoding β-catenin), activating the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway and presenting a potential new therapeutic target [105,123]. These gene fusions, especially those involving NCOA genes, interact with hormone nuclear receptors and mediate essential cellular functions, hinting at the oncogenic potential when these are dysregulated [109]. The partner genes of GREB1- or ESR1-rearranged UTROSCT, including NCOA1–3, NR4A3, GTF2A1, and CTNNB1, are described in Table 6.
To mention the negative findings in UTROSCT, which can be useful in differentiation from other uterine neoplasms, it has been consequently shown that UTROSCTs lack the JAZF1-JJAZ1 translocation that is frequently seen in endometrial stromal tumors [87,97,117]. Furthermore, the Bcl-2 and MALT1 genes are unlikely to be involved in the pathogenesis of UTRSCT, although they are located close to the frequently observed translocation points t(X;6)(p22.3;q23.1) and t(4;18)(q21.1;q21.3) [22,31]. Finally, UTRSCTs frequently exhibit positivity for sex cord markers FOXL2 and SF-1 without showing any mutations in the FOXL2 and DICER1 genes [123].
3.7. Risk Factors and Prognostic Factors
Considering the small number of cases, there are no established risk factors for UTROSCT, and reports on their hereditary background are absent. Seven UTROSCT cases have been reported in patients treated with tamoxifen [28,36,40,46,70,116,126]. A causal association should be approached with caution, as the majority of UTROSCT cases developed without tamoxifen exposure, and the number of women exposed to tamoxifen—due to the high incidence of breast cancer—is disproportionately large in comparison to the rarity of UTROSCT. Furthermore, some gene rearrangements seen in UTROSCT (GREB1-fusions) are known to make the tumors responsive to tamoxifen therapy.
Factors such as age, menopausal status, or the extent of surgery (whether uterus-preserving or not) have not been predictive of relapse. Accordingly, in our review, age and tumor size have not been associated with more aggressive disease course.
Traditionally, based on the series by Clement and Scully, recurrences are more commonly associated with type 1 tumors than with type 2 tumors [4,113]. Certain histological features have been identified as prognostic factors in UTROSCT. Boyraz et al. observed five recurrences among 58 patients over an average follow-up time of 73 months (ranging from 22 to 192 months) and concluded that malignant UTROSCTs exhibited more than three of the following five features compared to their benign counterparts: size greater than 5 cm, at least moderate cytologic atypia, three or more mitoses per 10 high-power fields (HPF), infiltrative borders, and necrosis. One of the five malignant tumors displayed extensive rhabdoid morphology [129]. Additionally, tumor size, lymphovascular space involvement, nuclear atypia, cervical involvement, or the proliferation index (Ki67) could not be confirmed as prognostic factors in UTROSCT by various authors [54,91,94,95,97,98,99,122].
Myometrial invasion and serosal involvement are traditional pathological risk factors evaluated, though their utility in UTROSCT has been supported by individual observations without comparators [54,95,97,98,99]. In contrast, tumors with infiltrating growth patterns and no recurrences during follow-ups are well-documented [47,50]. Some immunophenotypes, like those with a predominant epithelial retiform component (RUTROSCT), seem to be associated with a good prognosis and could help in preventing overtreatment in selected patients [116]. Due to the relative overrepresentation of malignant cases in the dataset of Moore and McCluggae, their findings are particularly insightful regarding the malignant potential of individual UTROSCT cases, i.e., 8 of 34 patients (23.5%) developed extraterine metastases in various sites, including the pelvic and abdominal peritoneum, ovary, lymph nodes, bone, liver, and lung, and three patients (8.8%) died due to the tumors [122]. Neoplasms exhibiting malignant behavior that occurred on average in older patients were larger and more likely to show necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, cervical involvement, significant nuclear atypia, and significant mitotic activity. Finally, only the presence of necrosis and a significant mitotic activity were statistically significant [122].
Given the overlap in pathological parameters between clinically benign and malignant neoplasms, some authors proposed considering all UTROSCTs as potentially malignant until proven otherwise [122]. This somewhat fatalistic view has been significantly clarified in recent years by numerous studies equivocally pointing to specific genetic changes within UTROSCT as the most important predictors of malignancy and recurrence. Gene rearrangements involving key genes in sex hormone pathways appear to be the best predictors of recurrence. As demonstrated in [105,125], UTROSCTs with GREB1 rearrangement may have a high risk of recurrence or metastasis. Regarding prognosis, GREB1-rearranged tumors tended to occur in significantly older women than UTROSCT with ESR1 fusions; moreover, GREB1-rearranged tumors tended to be larger and more mitotically active and behave more aggressively [105]. Recently, Yin et al. [86] described novel fusion genes involving ESR1 and GREB1 as the 5′ partner and NCOA1-3 as the 3′ partner. Genotype and phenotype correlation has suggested that GREB1-rearranged UTROSCTs may have a higher tendency to behave aggressively.
Particularly, tumors with GREB1::NCOA2 fusions are more likely to recur than those with any other genetic alteration [132]. The suggestive study by Xiong et al. combined classical histomorphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular–genetic predictors, and finding a significant mitotic activity, a high expression of stromal PD-L1, and an NCOA2 gene alteration may help in identifying the subset of UTROSCT with aggressive behavior and shorter disease-free survival (DFS) [130].
3.8. Treatment Strategies
Total abdominal hysterectomy with BSO was the most common treatment, followed by total abdominal hysterectomy without BSO. Other forms of hysterectomy, such as (laparoscopically assisted) vaginal hysterectomy, were also reported [4,63,118,120].
For women who have completed their reproductive plans, a total HE, whether abdominal or laparoscopic, and depending on menopausal status, with or without ovariectomy, appears to be an adequate treatment for tumors confined to the uterus.
Supracervical hysterectomy, although mentioned incidentally in reports by Bakula-Zalewska et al. [119] and Carbone et al. [127], does not appear to be appropriate for UTROSCT because of its potential for cervical involvement and the need for tumor morcellation, which can increase the risk of recurrence [109]. The scarcity of intraoperative details in most cases and documented recurrences following tumor disintegration [58,60,109] should prompt surgeons to be particularly vigilant.
When bulky lymph nodes are present, removing the nodes and performing regional lymphadenectomy is a straightforward decision. However, for cases with histologically aggressive tumors in preoperative specimens, there is no established strategy. The use of indocyanine green for sentinel lymph node detection, while aligning with current trends to minimize perioperative morbidity [142], has not been specifically studied in UTROSCT. Consequently, routine systematic lymphadenectomy or non-specific sampling in UTROSCT lacks robust support from existing evidence. Individual decisions, taking into account patient preferences, are advisable in such scenarios.
Given the fact that around 15% of all reported cases occurred in nulligravidas, the possibility of uterus-preserving treatments and, on the other hand, the identification of tumors with aggressive behavior (where conservative treatments could potentially lead to worse prognosis) are critical. Confusingly, among nulliparous patients, only 30% underwent fertility-sparing treatments. Notably, the recurrence rate does not appear to be higher following fertility-sparing treatments compared to hysterectomy or more radical approaches. In the youngest reported case, a 12-year-old patient underwent uterus-sparing removal of a 19.5 cm tumor and remained recurrence-free at a 27-month follow-up [122]. Conversely, cases of nulliparous patients aged 18 [92] and 19 [114] who underwent hysterectomy and BSO raise concerns about the potential overtreatment.
3.9. UTROSCT and Fertility
Ten cases of pregnancy associated with UTROSCT have been reported, including two pregnancies in one patient both during and after UTROSCT treatment [127]. Interestingly, three cases of UTROSCT were identified during evaluations for primary or secondary infertility [25,50,56], and another case was detected following a miscarriage curettage [127]. In three instances, conception occurred while the tumor was present [93,127] or shortly after tumor resection [49]. Seven nulliparous women successfully conceived following fertility-sparing treatments for UTROSCT [25,34,49,50,56,58,127], and each experienced an uncomplicated pregnancy. Except for one in vitro fertilization [50], all pregnancies occurred spontaneously. One patient, diagnosed with an advanced tumor in the 35th week of pregnancy [93], died nine months later due to disease progression; however, all other patients remained alive. Some women underwent hysterectomy at or after delivery [49,58], while others did not [34,56,127]. These cases are summarized in Table A1.
A viable approach appears to be delayed hysterectomy, undertaken immediately after fulfilling reproductive plans. This strategy was employed in cases [49,50,58]. Schraag et al. reported a successful pregnancy in a patient who had undergone two organ-preserving treatments (initially for tumor persistence and subsequently for relapse), eventually followed by a hysterectomy [58]. Considering the potential for late local recurrences and the absence of long-term cohort studies, offering a hysterectomy upon the completion of family planning seems advisable [25,58].
3.10. Follow-Up
Follow-up protocols for UTROSCT differ between authors. Common imaging modalities like transvaginal ultrasound or MRI can be used, since the problem with UTROSCT is not that it is not visible on imaging, but only indistinguishable from common pathologies by ultrasound or MRI. Accordingly, most recurrences were detected through ultrasound or MRI. While there are no established serum tumor markers specific to UTROSCT, markers that were elevated at initial diagnosis and responsive to treatment should be monitored during follow-up. Notably, increases in serum CA125 [100,110] or prolactin [95,107] levels have preceded some recurrences.
In cases where the initial approach was hysteroscopic, performing repeat hysteroscopy to exclude intracavitary tumor residues after local resection [34] or as a part of follow-up can enhance the safety of conservative strategies [37,56]. Garuti et al. proposed a follow-up regimen of clinical examinations and transvaginal sonography at 6-month intervals, supplemented by office hysteroscopy every 12 months for the first three years [37]. whereas Similarly, De Franciscis et al. recommended transvaginal ultrasound examinations every six months and diagnostic hysteroscopy annually for five years [56]. The duration of follow-up remains undefined due to low number of recurrent cases, no established patterns of recurrence, and PFSs of 7 [112], 11 [96], 14 [110], 23 [99] or 32 [104] years being not uncommon.
3.11. Recurrence Treatments
Surgery aimed at the complete removal of any tumor residues key to long-term survival, even in the cases of recurrence, with singular follow-ups reaching 32 years [104]. Cömert et al. [102] calculated the average recurrence rate of UTROSCT at 6.3%. The response to chemotherapy and hormonal treatments is generally poor. Reported chemotherapeutic regimens include ifosfamide, carboplatin, and CYVADIC (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dacarbazine), with no response in a patient who subsequently died 9 months after the initial diagnosis [93]. BEP (bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin) was used in a 43-year-old patient with recurrence [60], as well as megestrol acetate and letrozole, with recurrence occurring 3 months after the completion of adjuvant therapy. Letrozole and medroxyprogesterone acetate were abandoned after 3 months due to no response [99]. Blinmann et al. [96] applied tamoxifen, warfarin, and doxorubicin with minimal response and anastrazol with uncertain effect. Another patient received BEP and relapsed 8 months after the completion of therapy. They continued with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and ombrabulin, with repeated disease progression. The subsequent treatments included epirubicin with pazopanib, letrozole, trabectedin, paclitaxel, BI860585, and exemestane and rechallenged with epirubicin, BMS-986148, and nivolumab until the final progression and death [112].
4. Discussion
This review represents the largest aggregation of UTROSCT cases to date, with 511 cases reported from the initial description in 1945 to late 2023. We also contribute two new cases of UTROSCT: one mimicking a myoma FIGO type 4, diagnosed after laparoscopic “myomectomy,” and another manifesting as a submucous mass with endometrial thickening, diagnosed via office hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy [143]. For both individuals, a hysterectomy was the chosen definitive treatment.
Although our review provides several insights into UTROSCT’s clinical presentation and management, the level of available evidence is still unsatisfactory, due to relying on case reports and retrospective case series (the largest comprising 75 cases). The available knowledge about UTROSCT suffers from insufficient case numbers and the impossibility of randomized controlled trials, but also publication bias. The latter shortcoming can lead to an overrepresentation of aggressive cases (as stated in [122]) or an assumption of cases to be prematurely benign, as cases with a follow-up of few months or simply not reporting a recurrence are commonly classified as “not recurrent” (the latter limitation may apply also to the present review). The quality of reporting, e.g., lacking histological description [71], further contributes to the uncertainty of available evidence.
AUB is the most common symptom for leiomyomas, endometrial polyps, and other endometrial proliferations [144]. The symptoms and the sonographic appearance of UTROSCT are identical with those of very common uterine pathologies responsible for AUB or pelvic pain. In addition, a significant proportion of UTROSCTs become asymptomatic, a characteristic shared with uterine myomas. The sonographic or MRI appearance is usually suggestive of uterine leiomyoma or, less commonly, adenomyosis. Neither the size (ranging from 1 to 20 cm), nor the relationship to the myometrium (whether submucosal or intramural) or endometrium (such as polypoid intracavitary growth), facilitates the differentiation of UTROSCT from myomas or polyps. Additionally, it is noteworthy that UTROSCT often coexists with one or more leiomyomas in the same patient [18,27,41,103].
The difficulty in differentiating between uterine tumors with a sonographic appearance similar to myomas is well known [145,146,147]. In the study by Russo et al., no significant differences were observed between benign and malignant lesions in terms of echogenicity, the presence of shadowing, or size; however, cystic areas within the lesion were seen in 31% of typical leiomyomas and in 55% of leiomyoma variants, adenomyomas, and smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) or leiomyosarcoma. Lesion borders were regular in 99% of benign lesions and 40% of malignant lesions [145]. Similarly, intratumoral cystic areas, poor or moderate vascularization, and the absence of shadowing were more common in sarcomas [146] and in STUMP [147]. In this context, the observation by Chiappa et al. that sparse edge shadowing and a lesser degree of vascularization, especially intralesional, might be more common in UTROSCT than in typical leiomyomas is not surprising. However, these findings cannot be interpreted as UTROSCT specific [73].
Our review confirmed that age and tumor size do not differ between patients with UTROSCT presenting aggressive behavior (defined by the initial extrauterine tumor spread or recurrence) and those with benign clinical course. The unspecific symptomatic and sonographic appearance, grossly overlapping with those of uterine myomas or intracavitary polyps, are the inherited features of UTROSCT and therefore not modifiable. Nevertheless, progress has been achieved in the areas of individualized therapy planning and immunohistochemical and molecular diagnosis.
The analysis of gene fusions is a new tool in the differential diagnosis of UTROSCT, offering novel prognostic factors that facilitate tailored therapy planning. For example, UTROSCT differs from endometrial stromal neoplasms (including those with sex cord stromal differentiation) in that it typically does not exhibit the JAZF1-SUZ12 fusion or PHF1 rearrangements [7]. Furthermore, UTROSCT is not associated with FOLX2 and DICER1 mutations, which are indicative of ovarian adult-type granulosa cell tumors and Sertoli–Leydig cell tumors, respectively [7]. On the other hand, recent findings have identified recurrent fusions involving NCOA2 and NCOA3 (such as ESR1-NCOA3, ESR1-NCOA2, or GREB1-NCOA2) in UTROSCT. These genes, NCOA2 and NCOA3, are known to be involved in steroid hormone regulation, and the disruptions in their nuclear receptor coactivator domains are thought to play a crucial role in the development of UTROSCT [7,76,104,105,124,125,131,132,133,134].
Recent research has provided molecular features that aid in a more personalized approach. We assume that the future of UTROSCT diagnosis and treatment—including the decision to preserve the uterus or not—will be the molecular–genetic testing, as it has become common in other gynecologic malignancies, e.g., endometrial carcinoma [148,149]. This hypothesis is supported by numerous recent studies [86,105,109,123,124,125,126,128,129,130,131,132] that identified factors associated with aggressive clinical behavior and recurrence. In UTROSCT, GREB1 or ESR1 often fuse with members of the p160 steroid receptor coactivator family, which includes NCOA1, NCOA2, and NCOA3. These gene fusions, such as GREB1::NCOA2 and ESR1::NCOA2, result in the aberrant activation of estrogen signaling pathways, driving the proliferation and survival of tumor cells. The fusion proteins maintain the transcriptional activation function, which may lead to the dysregulated expression of genes that are normally regulated by sex hormones, potentially contributing to the tumorigenesis of UTROSCT. The specific fusion types, particularly GREB1::NCOA2, are associated with a higher recurrence risk. Furthermore, the GREB1 rearrangements can be detected both in aggressive primary and relapsed tumors [105,125]. Since specific gene fusions, a high expression of stromal PD-L1, and a significant mitotic activity have been shown to predict aggressive UTROSCT [130], we postulate to include these parameters into the standard evaluation of UTROSCT. Along with these findings, the most recent WHO classification concludes that “although data is limited, features that may be associated with aggressive behavior include a mitotic count >2 per 2 mm2 (>2 mitoses per 10 HPFs if field diameter is 0.55 mm), necrosis, extensive (>50%) rhabdoid morphology and potentially tumors with GREB1 rearrangement” [1].
Criteria for Fertility-Sparing UTROSCT Treatments
A significant strength of the paper is the accumulation of cases with a favorable outcome despite uterus-preserving strategies. In 2015, Watrowski et al. recommended to consider uterus preservation—after counseling about the unpredictable course of the disease—in young patients with small, well-circumscribed tumors limited to the intrauterine cavity, with a hysteroscopic follow-up or at least a regular transvaginal ultrasound [47].
As of 2023, in light of the current literature, we suggest following criteria for considering fertility-preserving treatments:
Desire for pregnancy.
Evaluation and documentation of risk factors:
⚬. Tumor size/extrauterine spread;
⚬. Presence of necrosis;
⚬. Mitotic activity;
⚬. Presence of GREB1::NCOA-1/3 fusions.
No tumor residues after last treatment (e.g., negative re-hysteroscopy).
Possibility and adherence to follow-up.
Offering hysterectomy after the completion of family planning.
5. Conclusions
Our review of literature comprises the largest data extraction from 511 cases, two of them being reported for the first time. UTROSCT is not associated with specific clinical presentations or pathognomonic findings; the symptoms and sonographic appearance of UTROSCT largely overlap with those of leiomyoma, and less commonly, with those of adenomyosis or endometrial polyps. Therefore, it is usually discovered accidentally, often after a disintegrating surgical modality performed for benign pathology. Fertility-preserving initial treatment does not seem to worsen the prognosis. Common parameters, like patient age, tumor size, lymphovascular space invasion, nuclear atypia, and cervical involvement, are not prognostic factors in UTROSCT. However, current research suggests that aggressive cases (with extrauterine spread or recurrence) can be identified based on a distinct genetic and immunohistochemical phenotype. Particularly, UTROSCT with GREB1::NCOA2 gene fusions or the expression of the PD-L1 molecule seem to be predisposed to metastasize and relapse. Hence, we advocate a subclassifcation of UTROSCT according to molecular criteria to allow a better selection of women suitable for fertility-sparing treatments and, on the other hand, with an increased risk of relapse, possibly requiring more radical treatments.
Conceptualization, M.P., R.W., M.C.D.A. and A.D.S.S.; methodology, M.C.D.A., M.P., R.W. and S.G.; formal analysis, R.W.; investigation, R.W., M.P., S.G. and M.C.D.A.; resources, R.W. and M.P.; data curation, R.W., M.P. and M.C.D.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.W., M.P., S.G. and M.C.D.A.; writing—review and editing, R.W., M.P., A.D.S.S. and M.C.D.A.; visualization, M.P., M.C.D.A., A.G. and G.B.; supervision, G.B., B.Z., P.G., A.D.S.S. and M.C.D.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.
The data presented in this study are available on request from M.P. and R.W.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Sonographic appearance and measurements in three dimensions of the UTROSCT in Case 1.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Intraoperative view: (A) typical intramural leiomyoma with a slight serosal protrusion of the posterior uterine wall and smooth Douglas peritoneum and (B) after incision, the tumor still presents as an intramural myoma.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. The arrows indicate the intraoperative appearance of UTROSCT on the anterior uterine wall (A–C) during hysteroscopy, and the post-biopsy view (D) of Case 2.
Clinical and histological characteristics of UTROSCT (adopted from [
| Age Distribution | Adult women (third to sixth decades) |
| Clinical Features | Abnormal uterine bleeding |
| Gross Findings | Well circumscribed, variable size (median 6 cm; >10 cm in 20%) |
| Microscopic Findings | Usually well-demarcated; irregular border with infiltration may occur |
| Immunohistochemical Features | Calretinin (>95%), CD99 (>90%), CD 56 (>90%), inhibin, WT1, and FOXL2 positive |
| Differential Diagnosis | Endometrial stromal tumor (nodule or low-grade sarcoma) |
Immunohistochemical characteristics of tumors.
| Antibody | Marker for | Case 1 (31 y.o.) | Case 2 (58 y.o.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calretinin | Sex cord | Positive (++) | Positive (++) |
| CD99 | Sex cord | Positive (++) | Focally positive (+) |
| CD56 (NCAM) | Sex cord | Positive (++) | N/a |
| Inhibin | Sex cord | Negative | Positive (++) |
| Wilms tumor protein (WT1) | Mesothelioma/serous differentiation | Positive (++) | N/a |
| Cytokeratin (CK 7) | Epithelium (e.g., ovarian adenocarcinoma) | Negative | Negative |
| EMA | Epithelial membrane | Negative | Negative |
| Alpha-SMC | Smooth muscle cells | Positive (++) | Focally positive (+) |
| Desmin | Muscle-type intermediate filaments | Focally positive (+) | Focally positive (+) |
| Caldesmon | Myogenic marker | Negative | Negative |
| E-Cadherin | Epithelial marker | Focally positive (+) | Focally positive (+) |
| P16 | HPV-related carcinomas | Focally positive (+) | Negative |
| Cyclin D1 | Different cancers | Negative | Negative |
| BCOR | Soft tissue sarcomas, ESS | Negative | Negative |
| TTF1 | Lung adenocarcinoma, thyroid carcinoma | Negative | Negative |
| GATA3 | Breast cancer | Negative | Negative |
| Chromogranin | Neuroendocrine marker | Negative | Negative |
| Synaptophysin | Neuroendocrine marker | Negative | Negative |
| Cathepsin K | Breast, lung, prostate, kidney | Negative | Negative |
| Estrogen receptor | Genital and breast carcinomas | Positive (++) | Positive (++) |
| Progesterone receptor | Genital and breast carcinomas | Positive (++) | Positive (++) |
alpha-SMA: alpha-Smooth Muscle Actin, ER: estrogen receptor, PR: progesterone receptor, WT1: Wilms tumor 1, BCOR: BCL6 corepressor, EMA: epithelial membrane antigene, CK7: cytokeratin 7, TTF1: thyroid transcription factor-1. NCAM: neural cell adhesion molecule (=CD56); and ESS: endometrial stromal sarcoma; (+) and (++) indicate the intensity of staining, with ‘(+)’ denoting a lower intensity and ‘(++)’ indicating a higher intensity.
Case reports with benign outcome (no evidence or no reporting of extrauterine spread or relapse).
| First Author | Year | Age | Parity | Symptom | Site | Size, cm | Treatments | FU (mo) | Associated with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morehead [ | 1945 | 44 | G7, P5 | AUB | Uterine mass | 2 | vaginal HE | N/a | |
| Tang [ | 1979 | 28 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 9 | HE | 8 | “indistinguishable from UTROSCT” (but referred to as “stromomyoma”) |
| Fekete [ | 1985 | N/a | Submucosal | HE | N/a | ||||
| Iwasaki [ | 1986 | 33 | TAH | Osteoid metaplasia | |||||
| Erhan [ | 1992 | 40 | N/a | pain | Intramural | 9 | TAH, BSO | Stromomyoma; D&C: normal | |
| Moll [ | 1992 | 73 | G2/P1 | AUB, pain | Polypoid | 5 | TAH, BSO | 12 | D&C: carcinosarcoma |
| Horn [ | 1995 | 54 | N/a | Uterine mass | 7.6 | HE, BSO | 27 | Partially retroperitoneal | |
| Miliaras [ | 1997 | 57 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 7.5 | HE, BSO | 30 | |
| Okada [ | 2001 | Intramural | Endometrial adenoacanthoma | ||||||
| Hauptmann [ | 2001 | 49 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 4.5 | HE | 7 | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Ribau Díez [ | 2001 | 36 | G3, P3 | AUB | Uterine mass | 5.7 | HE | 94 | |
| Suzuki [ | 2002 | 66 | G1, P1 | Hypercalcemia | Cervix | 8 | HE, BSO | N/a | Hypercalcemia, hyper-PTH-emia |
| Kuruvila [ | 2003 | 50 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | D&C in both cases | 12 | ||
| Wang [ | 2003 | 34 | G2, P1 | AUB | Submucosal | 4.7 | HE, BSO | 12 | |
| Franco [ | 2003 | 69 | G7, P4 | AUB | Uterine mass | 7 | D&C, HE, BSO, LN sampling | N/a | |
| Kabbani [ | 2003 | 24 | G0, P0 | AUB | Cervix | 11 | HE, irradiation, PLN sampling | 12 | |
| Hillard [ | 2004 | 32 | G0, P0 | AUB | Intramural | N/a | Lsc TR | 15 | Pregnancy after treatment |
| Sutak [ | 2005 | 72 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 2.2 | HE + BSO | 15 | |
| Motiwala [ | 2006 | 63 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 11 | HE + BSO | N/a | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Oztekin [ | 2006 | 58 | G13, P3 | Pain | Intramural | 6 | TAH, BSO | 8 | Tamoxifen therapy |
| Zámecník [ | 2006 | 39 | N/a | N/a | Intramural | 2 | HE | N/a | Double tumor |
| Calisir [ | 2007 | 65 | N/a | Pelvic mass | Intramural | 8.5 | HE, BSO | N/a | Mazabraud’s syndrome |
| Sitic [ | 2007 | 76 | N/a | AUB | Uterine mass | 7.5 | HE, BSO | 48 | |
| Kunz [ | 2007 | 38 | G1, P0 | asymptomatic | Intramural | 12 | Open TR | N/a | |
| Dede [ | 2008 | 37 | AUB | Intramural | 3.5 | HE, LN sampling | N/a | ||
| Anastasakis [ | 2008 | 28 | G0, P0 | AUB | Polypoid | N/a | Hsc TR | 27 | Pregnancy 6 mo after diagnosis |
| Berretta [ | 2009 | 26 | G0, P0 | AUB | Uterine mass | Hsc TR | N/a | ||
| Stolnicu [ | 2009 | 71 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | 2.5 | HE, BSO | 36 | Adenosarcoma |
| Stolnicu [ | 2009 | 64 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | 8 | HE, BSO | 60 | Adenosarcoma, tamoxifen |
| Garuti [ | 2009 | 29 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 5 | Hsc TR | 13 | |
| Aziz [ | 2009 | 62 | N/a | PMB | Polypoid | 2 | TAH, BSO | N/a | Uneventful “yearly checkups” |
| Carta [ | 2010 | 74 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 17 | HE, BSO | 8 | |
| Giordano [ | 2010 | 26 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 2.2 | Hsc TR | 15 | |
| Giordano [ | 2010 | 46 | G2/P2 | AUB | Polypoid | N/a | HE, BSO (finally) | N/a | Tamoxifen, breast cancer metastasis to the cervix |
| Abdullazde [ | 2010 | 46 | N/a | AUB, Pain | Intramural | 2 | HE, BSO | 24 | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Abdullazde [ | 2010 | 30 | N/a | AUB | “myoma” | 2 | “myomectomy” | N/a | |
| Abdullazde [ | 2010 | 42 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | 1.5 | HE | N/a | |
| Özer [ | 2013 | 38 | G4/P3 | AUB, pain | Intramural | 18 | TAH | N/a | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Abid [ | 2014 | 43 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid and Intramural | 1.5 | D&C, HE, BSO | 12 | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Hashmi [ | 2014 | 48 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 7 | HE, BSO | N/a | |
| Ehdaivand [ | 2014 | 47 | G0, P0 | AUB | Intramural | N/a | Lsc HE, BSO, morcellation | 24 | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Gutierrez-Pecharroman [ | 2014 | 49 | Polypoid | 2 | HE | 18 | Tamoxifen | ||
| Watrowski [ | 2015 | 22 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 2 | Hsc TR | 28 | |
| Coelho [ | 2015 | 35 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 1.5 | Hsc TR, followed by TAH | N/a | Multiple leiomyomas |
| Hermsen [ | 2015 | 36 | N/a | AUB | Submucosal | N/a | Hsc TR, Caesarean HE in 34 wop | 24 | Pregnancy |
| Hermsen [ | 2015 | 68 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | 1.5 | D&C, TAH + BSO | 6 (probably) | D&C misleading: ESS |
| Jeong [ | 2015 | 32 | G0, P0 | Infertility, AUB | Submucosal | 3.6 | Hsc TR, then Lsc HE after 5 mo | 47 | Pregnancy |
| Lin [ | 2015 | 37 | G2, P2 | AUB | Submucosal | 5.7 | Hsc TR, TAH | N/a | |
| Byun [ | 2015 | 56 | G4, P2 | AUB | uterine mass | 2.2 | HE, BSO | 36 | |
| Uçar [ | 2016 | 65 | G6, P5 | AUB | Intramural | 8 | TAH, BSO, PLND, PALND | 12 | |
| Gomes [ | 2016 | 53 | N/a | AUB | Uterine mass | 12 | LASH, BSO, Cervix, OMx, parametrectomy, PLND | N/a | |
| Cetinkaya [ | 2016 | 52 | G2, P2 | AUB | Submucosal | 2 | HE, BSO, PLND, PALND | 17 | |
| De Franciscis [ | 2016 | 38 | G0, P0 | AUB | Polypoid | 1 | Hsc TR | 60 | Pregnancy |
| Cho [ | 2017 | 50 | N/a | AUB | 8.7 | HE, BSO | N/a | ||
| Schraag [ | 2017 | 72 | N/a | AUB | No macroscopic tumor | N/a | TAH, BSO | 46 | |
| Stefanovic [ | 2017 | 59 | Multi-P | AUB | Polypoid | 10 | TAH, BSO | N/a | Two D&Cs (benign polyp) in 5 years prior to UTROSCT |
| Viau [ | 2017 | 49 | G1, P1 | Pain | Intramural | 1.8 | HE, BSO | 16 | Multiple myomas of 8 cm |
| Sadeh [ | 2017 | 57 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | 0.9 | Lsc HE, BSO | 36 | |
| Varban [ | 2018 | 46 | N/a | AUB | Intramural | 7 | HE, BSO | N/a | Subserosal myoma of 3.5 cm |
| Vilos [ | 2018 | 52 | G3, P3 | AUB | Submucosal | 1 | Hsc TR; EMABL; LAVH, BSO | 36 | HE 9 mo after Dgn, no residues |
| Vilos [ | 2018 | 47 | G4, P3 | AUB | Submucosal | 2 | Hsc TR, EMABL; LAVH, BS | 12 | |
| Fan [ | 2018 | 62 | N/a | AUB | Uterine tumor | 3.8 | Extended HE, BSO, PLND, PALND | N/a | |
| Thakur [ | 2018 | 37 | G1, P1 | Infertility | Intramural | 1.1 | Hsc/Lsc TR | N/a | |
| Rozário Garcia [ | 2018 | 46 | G1, P1 | AUB | Prolapsed myoma | 4 | vaginal TR, then TAH, BSO | 12 | |
| Natarajan [ | 2018 | 58 | Multi-P | AUB | Submucosal | 4 | TAH, BSO | N/a | |
| Zhang [ | 2019 | 64 | N/a | AUB | Uterine mass | 10 | HE, BSO | 12 | |
| Zhang [ | 2019 | 33 | G2, P1 | AUB | Uterine mass | 3.5 | HE, BS | 144 | |
| Dubruc [ | 2019 | 56 | N/a | AUB | Cervix | 2.6 | HE | 4 | |
| Segala [ | 2019 | 62 | N/a | N/a | Intramural | 7 | TAH | 10 | Tamoxifen; multiple leiomyomas |
| Takeuchi [ | 2019 | 48 | N/a | Abdominal fullness | Cervix | 20 | HE, BSO | N/a | Thoracic lymphadenopathy |
| Li [ | 2019 | 43 | N/a | asymptomatic | Polypoid + Intramural | 3.1 | Lsc HE, BS (after HSc, D&C) | 3 | Endometriosis |
| Chiappa [ | 2019 | 28 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 5.5 | Hsc TR | N/a | |
| Kim [ | 2020 | 29 | G1, P1 | Pain | Subserosal | 6.5 | Lsc HE, BSO, PLND | 3 | |
| Kim [ | 2020 | 49 | G2, P2 | AUB | Uterine mass | 9 | HE, BSO | 12 | |
| Nguyen [ | 2020 | 61 | N/a | AUB | Polypoid | 5.3 | Extended Lsc HE, BSO, PLND | 1 | |
| Grither [ | 2020 | 69 | N/a | AUB | Uterine mass | 5.2 | Robotic HE + BSO | 8 | |
| Sato [ | 2020 | 57 | G2, P2 | Pain | Intramural | 2.5 | HE, BSO, OMx, PLND, PALND | 39 | Sarcomatous features |
| Zhou [ | 2021 | 56 | N/a | AUB | Pelvic mass | 10 | TAH + BSO | 58 | |
| Müller [ | 2021 | 18 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 4.5 | Hsc TR (2×) | 9 | |
| Pereira [ | 2021 | 37 | G0, P0 | AUB | Submucosal | 3.5 | Hsc TR | 20 | |
| Pang [ | 2022 | 46 | N/a | AUB | Submucosal | 4.5 | Lsc HE | 35 | |
| Pang [ | 2022 | 42 | N/a | Pain | Intramural | 5 | Lsc HE | 4 | |
| Wang [ | 2022 | 42 | N/a | AUB | Uterine mass | 3.9 | Lsc HE, BSO | N/a | |
| Xu [ | 2022 | 40 | N/a | asymptomatic | Uterine mass | 10 | open TR | 12 | |
| Shibahara [ | 2022 | 77 | G4/P2 | AUB | Uterine mass | 3 | TAH + BSO | 12 | |
| Sahraoui [ | 2023 | 19 | G0, P0 | Pain | Cervix | 3 | cervical TR | 24 | |
| Yin [ | 2023 | 51 | AUB | Submucosal | 8.5 | HE, BSO, LNE | 12 | GREB1-NCOA2 fusion | |
| Ise [ | 2023 | 75 | AUB | 8 | Myxoid features | ||||
| Zhou [ | 2023 | 49 | N/a | N/a | Intramural | 14 | HE, BSO | 1 | Increase in CA125 |
| EL Hayek [ | 2023 | 58 | G2, P2 | Hemoperitoneum | Intramural | 10 | HE, BSO | N/a | Uterine rupture |
| Ferrara [ | 2023 | 73 | G4, P2 | AUB | Intramural | 2.5 | Lsc HE, BSO | 12 | |
| Present study | 2023 | 31 | G4, P4 | Asymptomatic | Intramural | 3 | Lsc HE, BSO | N/a | |
| Present study | 2023 | 58 | Multi-P | AUB | Submucosal | 1.5 | Lsc HE, BSO | 36 | Flat submucosal area |
AUB—abnormal uterine bleeding, N/a—not available, G—gravida, P—para, Hsc—hysteroscopic, Lsc—laparoscopic, TR—tumor resection, HE—hysterectomy, TAH—total abdominal HE, BSO—bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, VH—vaginal HE, LND—lymphonodectomy, EMABL—endometrial ablation, and OMx—omentectomy; “uterine mass”—used when the exact localization within the uterus was not reported.
Aggressive cases (extrauterine spread or metastasis at the first diagnosis or recurrence).
| First Author | Year | Age | Site (Extrauterine Extension) | Size, cm | Primary Treatment | Recurrence and PFS | Total FU | Last Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kantelip [ | 1986 | 86 | Intramural, left ovary, two epiploic nodules | 10 | TAH, BSO, partial cystectomy, epiploic resection | No recurrence | 60 mo | NED |
| Malfetano [ | 1989 | 18 | Intramural | 5 | TR, followed by TAH, PALND, Omx | Sigmoid, mesentery, ovary (nodules up to 6 cm), abdominal wall nodules 1–2 cm, PFS 72 | N/a | Tumor initially diagnosed as LG-ESS, recurrence as UTROSCT, G0, P0 |
| Di Vagno [ | 1996 | Pelvic tumor, lung metastasis, carcinomatosis (35th gw) | Caesarean HE, debulking, two CHT regimens (nonresponsive) | PD | 9 mo | DOD, 9 mo after dgn | ||
| Biermann [ | 2007 | 68 | Intramural | 4.5 | HE | 10 cm, small bowel, PFS 48 mo | 48 mo | 2 benign gastrointestinal stromal tumors |
| O’Meara [ | 2009 | 35 | Intramural | 9.9 | HE | Retropubic mass with bladder invasion, 8.3 cm, PFS 3 ys | 48 mo | NED 1 ys after secondary treatement with surgery and CHx, galactorrhea and hyperprolactinemia (at first and second dgn) |
| Blinman [ | 2009 | 49 | 6.5 | HE | 8 cm retroperitoneal mass, PFS 11 ys | Response to second-line anastrazole, lost for follow-up 10 ys after FD | ||
| Macak [ | 2014 | 53 | Uterine mass | 1.5 | HE, BSO, PALND | No recurrence | 10 mo | NED |
| Umeda [ | 2014 | 38 | Submucosal | 4.5 | HE, BSO, PLND | No recurrence | 11 mo | NED |
| Umeda [ | 2014 | 57 | Submucosal | 6.4 | HE, BSO | No recurrence | 8 ys | NED |
| Endo [ | 2015 | 62 | N/a | N/a | HE | Pelvic recurrence, 14 cm, 23 ys after HE (PFS 276 mo) | 24.5 ys | SD (recurrent tumor not completely resected) |
| Kuznicki [ | 2017 | 49 | Ovary, omental cake | 6 | Neoadjuvant CHx, optimal cytoreduction | PD, death 15 mo after dgn | 15 mo | DOD (CA125: 2210 U/mL) |
| Schraag [ | 2017 | 24 | Submucosal | N/a | Hsc TR, followed by re-Hsc, followed by open TR | Uterus, PFS 9 mo | 65 mo | NED, 56 mo from last surgery. False positive MRI (8 mm nodule) after 3 mo |
| Schraag [ | 2017 | 28 | Myoma | 10 | open TR | Pelvis, PFS 20 mo | 55 mo | Tumor rupture during first surgery; pregnancy after second surgery |
| Viau [ | 2017 | 43 | Double tumor: pedunculated uterine mass (13 cm), myometrial mass (5.5 cm); peritoneum | TAH, BSO, debulking, CHTx (bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin). | Pelvic tumor 5.5 cm, PFS 40 mo | 64 mo | NED, 2 years after second surgery Tumor rupture during first surgery | |
| Kondo [ | 2017 | 69 | Uterine mass | TAH, BSO | Lung, PFS 26 mo | NED | ||
| Cömert [ | 2018 | 61 | Pelvic mass | 7 | TAH, BSO | Pelvic mass, spleen, omentum, PFS 60 mo | 83 mo | NED, 7 mo after last surgery |
| Marrucci [ | 2019 | 54 | Uterine mass | 9 | HE, BSO | vaginal vault, PFS 50 mo | 74 mo | NED 24 mo after recurrence, Coexistence with multiple leiomyomas |
| Bennett [ | 2020 | 32 | Intramural | N/a | HE | (1) Pelvic sidewall, PFS 7 ys, and (2) second subtotal debulking, PFS 11 mo | 8 ys | AWD (Second subtotal debulking 11 mo later) |
| Bennett [ | 2020 | 54 | Intramural (multiple tumors 1.5–6.5 cm) | 1.5–6.5 | LASH, followed by trachelectomy | Pelvis, PFS 9 ys, debulking, CHx | 10 ys | NED |
| Bennett [ | 2020 | 30 | N/a | N/a | HE | Omentum, PFS 32 ys | 6 ys | PD (2 further recurrences, 2 and 4 years later) |
| Chang [ | 2020 | 57 | Intramural | 10 | TAH, BSO | Pelvic mass, PFS 30 mo | 35 mo | GREB1-NCO2 rearranged |
| Sh Hassan [ | 2020 | 41 | Intramural | N/a | TAH | Vaginal vault, PFS “few weeks” | 24 mo | NED |
| Dimitriadis [ | 2020 | 46 | Uterine mass | 11 | TAH | Intraabdominal recurrence, PFS 2 ys | 2 ys | N/a (report at the time of relapse) |
| Dondi [ | 2021 | 24 | Submucosal | 3 | Hsc TR | Uterus, PFS 20 mo | 30 mo | NED after secondary Lsc HE |
| Devereaux [ | 2021 | 42 | Intramural | 8.8 | TR with morcellation; at recurrence: TAH, BSO, debulking | Uterus, PFS 6 mo | 6 mo | Lost for FU after second surgery |
| Chen [ | 2021 | 33 | Uterus, pelvic lymph nodes | N/a | Radical HE, BSO, PLND, CHx, RTx | Retroperitoneal mass in the upper abdomen 10 × 7 cm, PFS 14 ys | 14 ys | Initially diagnosed as LG-ESS with pelvic LN metastases |
| Wei [ | 2021 | 46 | Uterus | 11 | TAH, BS | 20cm pelvic tumor adherent to intestine, PFS 53 mo. | 62 mo | DOD (9 mo after relapse); Ki67 25%, p53 positive; D&C 2 mo earlier: normal |
| Massa [ | 2022 | 56 | Intramural, among multiple myomas | N/a | HE | 10 peritneal nodules up to 8 cm, PFS 7 ys | 17 ys | DOD, 10 CHTx, antibody and hormonal therapies |
ys—years, mo—months, N/a—not available, HE—hysterectomy, TAH—total abdominal hysterectomy, LASH—laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, LAVH—laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, BSO—bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, BS—bilateral salpingectomy, Hsc—hysteroscopic, Lsc—laparoscopic, TR—tumor resection, OMx—omentectomy, Rx—radiotherapy, CHx—chemotherapy, LN—lymph nodes, LND—lymphonodectomy, PFS—progression-free survival, DOD—dead of disease, NED—no evidence of disease, PD—progressive disease, and FU—follow-up.
Case series with clinical data (in ≥ 3 categories).
| First Author | Year | No. | Age | Symptoms | Localization | Size | Primary Treatment | Recurrence, PFS | Total FU | Outcome by Last-Seen | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clement [ | 1976 | 14 | 44 (type 1, n = 6) | AUB (n = 9) | Intracavitary (n = 1 type 1, n = 3 type 2) | 2–15 | Type 1: TAH, BSO (n = 5); VH (n = 1) | Type1: Yes (n = 3): (a) PFS 12 ys, irradiation; (b) PFS 2 ys, lung metastases, no therapy; (c) PFS 2 ys, CHx-, Rx; Type 2: No | Type 1: 22 mo–15 ys | Type 1: DOD: n = 2, | |
| Baker [ | 1999 | 15 | 50 (30–78), (type 1, n = 10) | AUB (n = 5) | Intramural or polypoid (no details) | N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a | |
| Irving [ | 2006 | 8 | 42 (19–69) | AUB (n = 8) | Intracavitary polyp (n = 3) | 3.5–14 | TAH, BSO (n = 2); TAH, BSO, Rx (n = 1), TAH, BSO, CHx (n = 1), HE (n = 4) | No (n = 7) | 10–62 mo | NED (n = 7) | |
| Rollins [ | 2007 | 37 | 47 (21–66) | N/a | Submucosal (“majority”) | 2.9 (0.7–17) | N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a | |
| Hurrel [ | 2007 | 4 | 43, 51, 73, 84 | Intramural (n = 3) | 0.8–19.5 | HE (4 times), BSO (2×), ULSO (1×) | N/a | N/a | |||
| Nogales [ | 2009 | 6 | 65 (42–76) | AUB (n = 4) | Polypoid (n = 4) | 0.7–8 | TAH, BSO (n = 5) | No | 1–15 ys | NED | Pelvic endometriosis: n = 1 |
| Staats [ | 2009 | 24 | 51 (29–84) | N/a | Endocervical polyp (n = 1); Submucous (n = 7); Intramural (n = 10); Subserosal (n = 2) | 6.6 (2–22) | N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a | Ultrastructural study; cases from the Collection of Scully |
| de Leval [ | 2010 | 12 | 50 (29–59) | AUB (n = 5) | Intramural (n = 5), | 5.5 (3–10) | TAH, BSO (n = 6), TAH (n = 1), VH (n = 1); D&C (n = 1), N/a (n = 3) | N/a | N/a | N/a | Ultrastructural study; cases from the Collection of Scully |
| Bakula-Zalewska [ | 2014 | 6 | 50,25, 51,63, 24,62 | N/a | Uterine mass | 3–24 | LASH + BSO (4 times), HSC TR (Case 2 and 5), adjuvant gestagene (4 times, nos) | No | 3–14.5 ys | NED | |
| Liu [ | 2015 | 5 | 45 (35–50) | AUB (n = 4) | Intramural (n = 3); Polypoid/submucous (n = 2); Protruding mass (n = 1) | 5.6 (3–10.2) | TAH (n = 3); VH (n = 1); TAH, BSO (n = 1); TR (n = 1) | Yes (n = 2) | 3 mo–7 ys | NED (n = 4) | CIN (n = 1); 1 recurrence after Hsc TR, one after TAH. |
| Stewart [ | 2016 | 6 | 60 (42–67) | AUB (n = 6) | Intramural (n = 5) | 4.6 (1–10) | N/a | No | 65.5 (39–96) mo | NED | |
| Moore [ | 2017 | 34 | 52 (12–86) | N/a | Uterine mass | 6.1 (0.4–19.5) | HE (n = 30) | No (n = 26) | 39 (6–135) mo | DOD (n = 3; 12, 23 and 23 after diagnosis); | |
| Croce [ | 2019 | 12 | 70 (n = 1) | Pelvic mass (n = 1) | N/a | 10 (n = 1) | TAH, BSO; posterior exenteration for recurrence (n = 1); | Yes (n = 1, PFS 17 mo, pelvis, lung) | 29 | N/a | 11/12 cases only as ultrastructural study |
| Dickson [ | 2019 | 4 | 53 (38–68) | N/a | Intramural (n = 3) | 2.4 (0.7–3.3) | HE (n = 3), D&C (n = 1) | N/a | N/a | N/a | Adenomyosis |
| Goebel [ | 2020 | 26 | 49.6 (20–74) | N/a | Polypoid (n = 4) | 5.1 (0.5–15) | HE (n = 17), TR (n = 3), D&C (n = 6) (numbers refer to the specimen source) * | No (n = 10) | 94.4 (1–319) mo | NED (n = 11) | |
| Kaur [ | 2020 | 6 | 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50. | AUB (n = 6) | Intramural (n = 5) | 1–9.3 | TAH, BSO (n = 4); | Yes (n = 1, PFS 7 mo), | 4 weeks–2 ys | NED (n = 4) | Tamoxifen: n = 1 |
| Carbone [ | 2021 | 10 | 48.5 (30–69) | AUB (n = 8) | Intramural (n = 10) | 2 (0.2–8) | HE, BSO (n = 4), HE, BSO, LNE (n = 3), LASH, BSO, Hsc TR (n = 1), open TR (n = 1) | No | 25 (3–97) mo | NED | Both conservatively treated patients became pregnant |
| Ye [ | 2022 | 5 | 53 (39–65) | AUB (n = 5) | Polypoid (n = 3) | 1.5–5 | HE, BSO (n = 4), HSC TR (n = 1) | No | 20 (4–72) mo | NED | |
| Boyraz [ | 2023 | 75 | 53 (21–84) | AUB (n = 35) | Intramyometrial (n = 38) | 3.5 (0.6–20) | HE (n = 18), HE, BSO (n = 53), TR (n = 4) | Yes (n = 4); 1. peritoneum, PFS 60 mo; 2. peritoneum, PFS 144 mo; 3. peritoneum, PFS 60 mo; 4. brain and femur, PFS 30 and 48. | 64 (22–192) mo | NED (n = 53), | |
| Xiong [ | 2023 | 19 | 42.8 (19–58) | N/a | N/a | 4.1 (1.5–15) | HE (n = 11) | No (n = 13), Yes (n = 6): 1. Peritoneum, PFS 99 mo; 2. pelvis, colon, PFS 2 mo, death; 3. Site n/a, PFS 54 mo; 4. lung, pelvis; PFS 13 mo; 5. pelvis, colon; 189 mo; 6. lung, PFS 14 mo) | 40.9 (1.2–195.3) mo | NED (n = 18, incl. n = 5 after recurrence) | |
| Lu [ | 2023 | 18 | 45 (27–60) | AUB, pelvic mass (n not indicated) | HE (n = 3) | ||||||
| Bi [ | 2023 | 23 | 43 (23–65) | N/a | Intramyometrial (n = 14) | 5.4 (1–15) | TAH (n = 4) | Yes (n = 8) | 8–177 mo | NED (n = 21) | |
| Bini [ | 2023 | 4 | N/a | Metastatic tumors | N/a | N/a | Yes (n = 4) | 13.5 (6–34) ys | DOD (n = 3) | ||
| Qijun [ | 2023 | 17 | 47 (19–67) | AUB (n = 15) | Intramural (n = 10) | 4.6 (0.6–14.7) | TAH or Lsc HE (n = 13) | Yes (n = 3) plevis/abdomen, PFS 16 and 17 mo; lung PFS 12 mo; | 20.2 (1–68) mo | NED (n = 14) |
* (mean or median, range), ys—years, mo—months, Rx—radiotherapy, CHx—chemotherapy, AUB—abnormal uterine bleeding, N/a—not available, HE—hysterectomy, TAH—total abdominal hysterectomy, LAVH—laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, BSO—bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, Hsc—hysteroscopic, Lsc—laparoscopic, TR—tumor resection, VH—vaginal hysterectomy, LN—lymph nodes, LND—lymphonodectomy, PFS—progression-free survival, DOD—dead of disease, NED—no evidence of disease, and AWD—alive with disease.
Common partner genes related to GREB1 and ESR1 rearrangement in UTROSCT.
| Gene | Encoded Protein | Function | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| GREB1 | Growth Regulation by Estrogen in Breast Cancer 1 | Transcriptionally driven by estrogen-bound ER, important in the estrogen/ER signaling pathway. GREB1-rearranged UTROSCT may be more aggressive | [ |
| ESR 1 | Estrogen Receptor 1 | Ligand-dependent transcription factor involved in sexual development, reproduction, and bone formation. ESR1-rearranged UTROSCT may be resistant to estrogen blockade due to loss of the ER ligand-binding domain | [ |
| NCOA1–3 | Nuclear Receptor Coactivator 1–3 | Enhance the activity of nuclear hormone receptors and mediate transcriptional effects of steroid/sex-hormone receptor pathways. Fusions involving NCOA genes have oncogenic potential when dysregulated | [ |
| CTNNB1 | β-Catenin | Key in Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, coactivator for TCF/LEF, involved in transcription initiation and chromatin remodeling. | [ |
| NR4A3 | Nuclear Receptor Subfamily 4 Group A Member 3 | Transcriptional activator for the steroid/thyroid hormone nuclear receptor family, regulating proliferation, survival, and differentiation. | [ |
| GTF2A1 | General Transcription Factor IIA, subunit 1 | Component of the RNA polymerase II transcription-initiation complex, interacting with steroid hormone receptors, including ERα, to facilitate transcription initiation. | [ |
| CITED2 | CBP/p300 interacting transactivator with Glu/Asp-rich carboxyl-terminal domain 2 | Transcriptional co-activator that modulates interactions between DNA-binding proteins and histone modifying enzymes, influencing the transcription of genes involved in embryonic development or cellular response to hypoxia. | [ |
Appendix A
Patients with pregnancy concurrent to or following UTROSCT.
| First Author, Year | Age | Symptoms | Size (cm) | Treatment | Infiltrative Margins | Conception | Time from dgn (mo) | Delivery Mode | Recurrence | HE after Childbearing | Total FU, mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Di Vagno, 1995 [ | N/a | Hemoperitoneum at 35 weeks | 5 | Caesarean HE | Yes | SpoCo, concurrent with UTROSCT | 0 | CS, 35 weeks | PD | Yes | 9 |
| Hillard, 2004 [ | 32 | Infertility; AUB | N/a | Lsc TR | SpoCo | 15 | N/a | No | 15 | ||
| Anastasakis, 2008 [ | 28 | AUB | N/a | Hsc TR | No | SpoCo | 6 | VD | No | No | 27 |
| Hermsen, 2015 | 36 | AUB | N/a | Hsc TR | Yes | SpoCo, concurrent with UTROSCT | 0 | CS (with HE), 34 weeks | No | Caesarean HE at 34 weeks (no reisdual tumor) | 24 |
| Jeong, 2015 [ | 32 | Infertility, AUB | 3 | Hsc TR | Yes | In vitro fertilization | 3 | CS, 36 weeks, 3070g | Yes | Lsc HE (residual tumor on specimen) | 47 |
| De Franciscis, 2016 [ | 38 | Infertility, AUB | 1 | Hsc TR | Yes | SpoCo | 2 | CS, 39 weeks | No | No | 60 |
| Schraag, 2017(Case 2) [ | 28 | Pelvic pain | 10 | Open TR | No | SpoCo (after second surgery for residual tumor) | 19 | CS (with HE) at 39 weeks | Yes (20 mo after CS) | Caesarean HE at 39 weeks | 55 |
| Carbone, 2021 | 25 | AUB | 0.2 | D&C (for miscarriage) followed by Hsc TR | N/a | 1st: SpoCo concurrent with UTROSCT, 2nd: SpoCo | 24 | VD, 39 weeks, 3590 g | No | No | 96 |
| Carbone, 2021 | 30 | AUB | 4 | open TR | No | SpoCo | 13 | CS, 38 weeks, 3080 g | No | No | 16 |
ys—years, mo—months, AUB—abnormal uterine bleeding, N/a—not available, HE—hysterectomy, Hsc—hysteroscopic, Lsc—laparoscopic, TR—tumor resection, and SpoCo—spontaneous conception.
References
1. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Female Genital Tumours, WHO Classification of Tumours; 5th ed. IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2020; Volume 4, Erratum in Female Genital Tumours, WHO Classification of Tumours, 5th ed.; 2021 Available online: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Who-Classification-Of-Tumours/Female-Genital-Tumours-2020 (accessed on 18 September 2023).
2. Fritz, A.; Percy, C.; Jack, A.; Shanmugaratnam, K.; Sobin, L.; Parkin, D.M.; Whelan, S. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology; 3rd ed. Second Revision ICD-O-3.2 IACR Press: Lyon, France, 2020; Available online: http://www.iacr.com.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=100&Itemid=577 (accessed on 18 September 2023).
3. Morehead, R.P.; Bowman, M.C. Heterologous Mesodermal Tumors of the Uterus: Report of a Neoplasm Resembling a Granulosa Cell Tumor. Am. J. Pathol.; 1945; 21, pp. 53-61. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19970803]
4. Clement, P.B.; Scully, R.E. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: A Clinicopathologic Analysis of Fourteen Cases. Am. J. Clin. Pathol.; 1976; 66, pp. 512-525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/66.3.512] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/961630]
5. Czernobilsky, B. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: An Update. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2008; 27, pp. 229-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181569a21] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18317219]
6. Hurrell, D.P.; McCluggage, W.G. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour Is an Immunohistochemically Polyphenotypic Neoplasm Which Exhibits Coexpression of Epithelial, Myoid and Sex Cord Markers. J. Clin. Pathol.; 2007; 60, pp. 1148-1154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2006.044842] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17182656]
7. Parra-Herran, C. Mesenchymal and Miscellaneous Lesions of the Uterus. Gynecologic Pathology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 407-496. ISBN 978-0-323-35909-2
8. Blake, E.A.; Sheridan, T.B.; Wang, K.L.; Takiuchi, T.; Kodama, M.; Sawada, K.; Matsuo, K. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors (UTROSCT): A Systematic Review of Literature. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.; 2014; 181, pp. 163-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.07.050] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25150955]
9. Paré, G.; Trudel, M.-C.; Jaana, M.; Kitsiou, S. Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews. Inf. Manag.; 2015; 52, pp. 183-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008]
10. Tang, C.K.; Toker, C.; Ances, I.G. Stromomyoma of the Uterus. Cancer; 1979; 43, pp. 308-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197901)43:1<308::AID-CNCR2820430145>3.0.CO;2-G]
11. Fekete, P.S.; Vellios, F.; Patterson, B.D. Uterine Tumor Resembling an Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: Report of a Case of an Endometrial Stromal Tumor with Foam Cells and Ultrastructural Evidence of Epithelial Differentiation. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 1985; 4, pp. 378-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004347-198512000-00011]
12. Iwasaki, I.; Yu, T.J.; Takahashi, A.; Asanuma, K.; Izawa, Y. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor with Osteoid Metaplasia. Acta Pathol. Jpn.; 1986; 36, pp. 1391-1395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1827.1986.tb02860.x]
13. Erhan, Y.; Baygün, M.; Ozdemir, N. The Coexistence of Stromomyoma and Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors. Report of a Case and Immunohistochemical Study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.; 1992; 71, pp. 390-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016349209021080]
14. Moll, M.; Horn, T. An Unusual Uterine Tumor Resembling Sex-Cord-Tumor of the Ovary with Papillomatous Features. Immunohistochemical and Electron Microscopic Observations. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.; 1992; 71, pp. 550-554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016349209041450] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1332378]
15. Horn, L.C.; Stegner, H.E. Uterine stromal tumor with ovarian sex cord differentiation. Pathologe; 1995; 16, pp. 421-425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002920050124] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8570562]
16. Miliaras, D.; Bontis, J. Uterine Tumor Resembling Sex-Cord Ovarian Tumors: One More Case of the Pure Type Suggests a Neoplasm with Benign Behavior. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol.; 1997; 18, pp. 133-135. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9105864]
17. Okada, S.; Uchiyama, F.; Ohaki, Y.; Kamoi, S.; Kawamura, T.; Kumazaki, T. MRI Findings of a Case of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors Coexisting with Endometrial Adenoacanthoma. Radiat. Med.; 2001; 19, pp. 151-153.
18. Hauptmann, S.; Nadjari, B.; Kraus, J.; Turnwald, W.; Dietel, M. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor—A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Virchows Arch.; 2001; 439, pp. 97-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004280100455]
19. Ribau Díez, M.I.; García Toro, E.; Velasco Osés, A.; Claver Criado, M.; Alonso Briz, E. Tumor uterino de los cordones sexuales. Prog. Obstet. Ginecol.; 2001; 44, pp. 87-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-5013(01)75622-1]
20. Suzuki, C.; Matsumoto, T.; Fukunaga, M.; Itoga, T.; Furugen, Y.; Kurosaki, Y.; Suda, K.; Kinoshita, K. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors Producing Parathyroid Hormone-Related Protein of the Uterine Cervix. Pathol. Int.; 2002; 52, pp. 164-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1827.2002.01319.x]
21. Kuruvila, S.; Samarasinghe, D.; Thomas, S. Uterine Neoplasm Resembling an Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor. Saudi Med. J.; 2003; 24, pp. 221-223.
22. Wang, J.; Blakey, G.L.; Zhang, L.; Bane, B.; Torbenson, M.; Li, S. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: Report of a Case with t(X;6)(P22.3;Q23.1) and t(4;18)(Q21.1;Q21.3). Diagn. Mol. Pathol.; 2003; 12, pp. 174-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00019606-200309000-00009]
23. Franco, S.; Andrade, M.J.; Silva, T.S.; Guerra, C.; De Oliveira, C. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor. Acta Med. Port.; 2003; 16, pp. 365-367.
24. Kabbani, W.; Deavers, M.T.; Malpica, A.; Burke, T.W.; Liu, J.; Ordoñez, N.G.; Jhingran, A.; Silva, E.G. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: Report of a Case Mimicking Cervical Adenocarcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2003; 22, pp. 297-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.PGP.0000070846.25718.97]
25. Hillard, J.B.; Malpica, A.; Ramirez, P.T. Conservative Management of a Uterine Tumor Resembling an Ovarian Sex Cord-Stromal Tumor. Gynecol. Oncol.; 2004; 92, pp. 347-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.09.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14751183]
26. Sutak, J.; Lazic, D.; Cullimore, J.E. Uterine Tumour Resembling an Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour. J. Clin. Pathol.; 2005; 58, pp. 888-890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2004.022616] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16049297]
27. Motiwala, N.; Shih, H.; Chen, L.; Lin, J.H. A 63-Year-Old Woman with Chronic Pelvic Pain. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor. Arch. Pathol. Lab Med.; 2006; 130, pp. e74-e76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5858/2006-130-e74-AYWWCP] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683901]
28. Oztekin, O.; Soylu, F.; Yigit, S.; Sarica, E. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors in a Patient Using Tamoxifen: Report of a Case and Review of Literature. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer; 2006; 16, pp. 1694-1697. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00647.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16884388]
29. Zámecník, M.; Staník, M. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT). Report of Case Suggesting Neoplastic Origin of Intratumoral Myoid Cells. Cesk Patol.; 2006; 42, pp. 145-149.
30. Calisir, C.; Inan, U.; Yavas, U.S.; Isiksoy, S.; Kaya, T. Mazabraud’s Syndrome Coexisting with a Uterine Tumor Resembling an Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT): A Case Report. Korean J. Radiol.; 2007; 8, pp. 438-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2007.8.5.438]
31. Sitic, S.; Korac, P.; Peharec, P.; Zovko, G.; Perisa, M.M.; Gasparov, S. Bcl-2 and MALT1 Genes Are Not Involved in the Oncogenesis of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors. Pathol. Oncol. Res.; 2007; 13, pp. 153-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02893492]
32. Kunz, J.; Friedrich, T. Uteriner Tumor mit keimstrang-ähnlicher Differenzierung (UTROSCT): Fallbericht und Literaturübersicht. Praxis; 2007; 96, pp. 1177-1181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1661-8157.96.31.1177]
33. Dede, M.; Gezginç, K.; Yenen, M.C.; Ulubay, M.; Safalı, M.; Başer, İ. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour. Electron. J. Gen. Med.; 2008; 5, pp. 118-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/82590]
34. Anastasakis, E.; Magos, A.L.; Mould, T.; Economides, D.L. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Treated by Hysteroscopy. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.; 2008; 101, pp. 194-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.09.029] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18045604]
35. Berretta, R.; Patrelli, T.S.; Fadda, G.M.; Merisio, C.; Gramellini, D.; Nardelli, G.B. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: A Case Report of Conservative Management in Young Women. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer; 2009; 19, pp. 808-810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a417b4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19509593]
36. Stolnicu, S.; Balachandran, K.; Aleykutty, M.A.; Loghin, A.; Preda, O.; Goez, E.; Nogales, F.F. Uterine Adenosarcomas Overgrown by Sex-Cord-like Tumour: Report of Two Cases. J. Clin. Pathol.; 2009; 62, pp. 942-944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2008.063727]
37. Garuti, G.; Gonfiantini, C.; Mirra, M.; Galli, C.; Luerti, M. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Treated by Resectoscopic Surgery. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.; 2009; 16, pp. 236-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.12.006]
38. Aziz, O.; Giles, J.; Knowles, S. Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumours: A Case Report. Cases J.; 2009; 2, 55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-1626-2-55] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19144192]
39. Carta, G.; Crisman, G.; Margiotta, G.; Mastrocola, N.; Di Fonso, A.; Coletti, G. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors. A Case Report. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol.; 2010; 31, pp. 456-458. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20882895]
40. Giordano, G.; Lombardi, M.; Brigati, F.; Mancini, C.; Silini, E.M. Clinicopathologic Features of 2 New Cases of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2010; 29, pp. 459-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181dfcfdc] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20736772]
41. Abdullazade, S.; Kosemehmetoglu, K.; Adanir, I.; Kutluay, L.; Usubutun, A. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors: Synchronous Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors and Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor. Ann. Diagn. Pathol.; 2010; 14, pp. 432-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2010.07.001]
42. Özer, H.; Aker, H.; Mutlu, A.E.; Yanık, A.; Koç, T.; Keser, H. CD56 Might Be a Useful Diagnostic Marker of Müllerian-Derived Tumors: Report of an Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT) Suggesting Polyphenotypic Origin and Review of the Literature. Basic Clin. Sci.; 2014; 2, 132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12808/bcs.v2i3.31]
43. Abid, N.; Mnif, H.; Mellouli, M.; Charfi, S.; Khabir, A.; Makni, S.; Boudawara, T. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumours Presenting as Multiple Endometrial and Cervical Uterine Polyps: A Case Report. Pathologica; 2014; 106, pp. 73-76.
44. Hashmi, A.A.; Faridi, N.; Edhi, M.M.; Khan, M. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT), Case Report with Literature Review. Int. Arch. Med.; 2014; 7, 47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-7-47] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395990]
45. Ehdaivand, S.; Simon, R.A.; Sung, C.J.; Steinhoff, M.M.; Lawrence, W.D.; Quddus, M.R. Incidental Gynecologic Neoplasms in Morcellated Uterine Specimens: A Case Series with Follow-Up. Hum. Pathol.; 2014; 45, pp. 2311-2317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2014.07.018] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257577]
46. Gutierrez-Pecharroman, A.; Tirado-Zambrana, P.; Pascual, A.; Rubio-Marin, D.; García-Cosío, M.; Moratalla-Bartolomé, E.; Palacios, J. A Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor Associated with Tamoxifen Treatment: A Case Report and Literature Review. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2014; 33, pp. 151-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e318286b4d9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24487470]
47. Watrowski, R.; Jäger, C.; Möckel, J.; Kurz, P.; Schmidt, D.; Freudenberg, N. Hysteroscopic Treatment of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord-like Tumor (UTROSCT). Gynecol. Endocrinol.; 2015; 31, pp. 856-859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1080682]
48. Coelho, D.M.S.; Carvalho, A.; Ferreira, S.; Mosteiro, M. Tumores uterinos que se assemelham a tumores ováricos dos cordões sexuais—Uma revisão da literatura, a propósito de um caso clínico. Acta Obstet. Ginecol. Port.; 2015; 9, pp. 297-300.
49. Hermsen, B. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour (UTROSCT): Experience with a Rare Disease. Two Case Reports and Overview of the Literature. Obstet. Gynecol. Cases Rev.; 2015; 2, 49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23937/2377-9004/1410049]
50. Jeong, K.H.; Lee, H.N.; Kim, M.K.; Kim, M.-L.; Seong, S.J.; Shin, E. Successful Delivery after Conservative Resectoscopic Surgery in a Patient with a Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor with Myometrial Invasion. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci.; 2015; 58, 418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2015.58.5.418]
51. Lin, B.-L.; Tsuchiya, K.; Tomosaka, M.; Okochi, M. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Diagnosed after Resectoscopic Operation in a 37-Year-Old Woman. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther.; 2015; 4, pp. 16-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gmit.2014.02.004]
52. Byun, J.M.; Kim, K.T.; Yoon, H.K.; Jeong, D.H.; Kim, Y.N.; Lee, K.B.; Sung, M.S. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor in Postmenopausal Woman. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India; 2015; 65, pp. 273-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0545-0]
53. Uçar, M.G.; Ilhan, T.T.; Gül, A.; Ugurluoglu, C.; Çelik, Ç. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour—A Rare Entity. J. Clin. Diagn. Res.; 2016; 10, pp. QD05-QD07. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/22152.9061]
54. Gomes, J.R.; Carvalho, F.M.; Abrão, M.; Maluf, F.C. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: A Case-Report and a Review of Literature. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep.; 2016; 15, pp. 22-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2015.11.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26937483]
55. Cetinkaya, N.; Bas, S.; Cuylan, Z.F.; Erdem, O.; Erkaya, S.; Gungor, T. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: A Case Report and Literature Review. Oncol. Lett.; 2016; 11, pp. 1496-1498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4076] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26893767]
56. De Franciscis, P.; Grauso, F.; Ambrosio, D.; Torella, M.; Messalli, E.M.; Colacurci, N. Conservative Resectoscopic Surgery, Successful Delivery, and 60 Months of Follow-Up in a Patient with Endometrial Stromal Tumor with Sex-Cord-like Differentiation. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol.; 2016; 2016, pp. 1-3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5736865] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27213063]
57. Cho, S.H.; Kim, H.J.; Han, H.Y.; Hwang, I.T.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, S. MRI Findings of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: A Case Report. J. Korean Soc. Radiol.; 2017; 76, 298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.76.4.298]
58. Schraag, S.M.; Caduff, R.; Dedes, K.J.; Fink, D.; Schmidt, A.-M. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors—Treatment, Recurrence, Pregnancy and Brief Review. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep.; 2017; 19, pp. 53-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2017.01.004]
59. Stefanovic, A.; Jeremic, K.; Kadija, S.; Mitrovic, M.; Filimonovic, D.; Jankovic-Raznatovic, S.; Tavcar, J. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor. Case Report and Review of Literature. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol.; 2013; 34, pp. 275-277.
60. Viau, M.; Grondin, K.; Grégoire, J.; Renaud, M.C.; Plante, M.; Sebastianelli, A. Clinicopathological features of two cases of uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors (UTROSCTs) and a comprehensive review of literature. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol.; 2017; 38, pp. 793-799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12892/ejgo3800.2017]
61. Sadeh, R.; Segev, Y.; Schmidt, M.; Schendler, J.; Baruch, T.; Lavie, O. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: Case Report of Rare Pathological and Clinical Entity. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol.; 2017; 2017, 2736710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/2736710]
62. Varban, A.-S.; Curte, A.; Gîrbea, C.L.; Poteca, A.; Paranici, C.; Enache, V.; Enache, S.; Salem, I.; Ostahi, I.A.; Andreoiu, O.M. et al. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour with Granulose-like Differentiation—A Case Report. Abstracts: 30th European Congress of Pathology. Virchows Arch.; 2018; 473, pp. 1-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-2422-1]
63. Vilos, A.G.; Zhu, C.; Abu-Rafea, B.; Ettler, H.C.; Weir, M.M.; Vilos, G.A. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Identified at Resectoscopic Endometrial Ablation: Report of 2 Cases. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.; 2019; 26, pp. 105-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.04.013]
64. Fan, L.-L.; Shen, Y.; Chanda, K.; Ren, M.-L. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: A Case Report and Literature Review. J. Cancer Res. Ther.; 2018; 14, pp. S1209-S1212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.204893] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30539872]
65. Thakur, A.; Malhotra, V.; Sachan, S.; Aggarwal, A. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: Histomorphological Features. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol.; 2018; 61, pp. 131-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_702_16] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29567903]
66. Rozário Garcia, F.A.; Gaigher, V.P.; Neves Ferreira, R.; Chambô Filho, A. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors Initially Diagnosed as a Prolapsed Fibroid. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol.; 2018; 2018, pp. 1-4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4703521]
67. Natarajan, J.; Shobha, K.; Kundargi, R.; Bafna, U.D. A Rare Case of UTROSCT: Case Report and Literature Review. Indian J. Gynecol. Oncol.; 2018; 16, 9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40944-018-0177-x]
68. Zhang, X.; Zou, S.; Gao, B.; Qu, W. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Analysis of Two Cases and a Literature Review. J. Int. Med. Res.; 2019; 47, pp. 1339-1347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060518821824]
69. Dubruc, E.; Alvarez Flores, M.T.; Bernier, Y.; Gherasimiuc, L.; Ponti, A.; Mathevet, P.; Bongiovanni, M. Cytological Features of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors in Liquid-Based Cervical Cytology: A Potential Pitfall. Report of a Unique and Rare Case. Diagn. Cytopathol.; 2019; 47, pp. 603-607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.24153]
70. Segala, D.; Gobbo, S.; Pesci, A.; Martignoni, G.; Santoro, A.; Angelico, G.; Arciuolo, D.; Spadola, S.; Valente, M.; Scambia, G. et al. Tamoxifen Related Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT): A Case Report and Literature Review of This Possible Association. Pathol. Res. Pract.; 2019; 215, pp. 1089-1092. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2019.01.039]
71. Takeuchi, M.; Matsuzaki, K.; Bando, Y.; Nishimura, M.; Hayashi, A.; Harada, M. A Case of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor (UTROSCT) Exhibiting Similar Imaging Characteristics to Those of Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor. Magn. Reason. Med. Sci.; 2019; 18, pp. 113-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2463/mrms.ci.2017-0177]
72. Li, S.; St. Germain, A.; Hui, P.; Finkelstein, A.; Vash-Margita, A.; Azodi, M. Uterine tumor resembling sex cord stromal tumor—A case report with operative, immunohistochemical and imaging correlation. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol.; 2019; 40, pp. 875-878.
73. Chiappa, V.; Ceni, V.; Bogani, G.; Ditto, A.; Martinelli, F.; Murru, G.; Galiano, V.; Raspagliesi, F. Sonographic Appearance of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROSCT). Australas. J. Ultrasound Med.; 2019; 22, 150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajum.12156]
74. Kim, I.H.; Hwang, Y.H.; Ha, J.G.; Hwang, I.T.; Kim, S.H. Two Cases of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: Rare Case of Uterine Tumor. Ewha Med. J.; 2020; 43, pp. 19-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12771/emj.2020.43.1.19]
75. Nguyen, C.V.; Phung, H.T.; Dao, L.T.; Ta, D.H.H.; Tran, M.N. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: Clinicopathological Characteristics of a Rare Case. Case Rep. Oncol.; 2020; 13, pp. 807-812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000508180] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32884523]
76. Grither, W.R.; Dickson, B.C.; Fuh, K.C.; Hagemann, I.S. Detection of a Somatic GREB1-NCOA1 Gene Fusion in a Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT). Gynecol. Oncol. Rep.; 2020; 34, 100636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2020.100636] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32964092]
77. Sato, M.; Yano, M.; Sato, S.; Aoyagi, Y.; Aso, S.; Matsumoto, H.; Yamamoto, I.; Nasu, K. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor (UTROSCT) with Sarcomatous Features without Recurrence after Extended Radical Surgery: A Case Report. Medicine; 2020; 99, e19166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019166] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32176042]
78. Zhou, F.-F.; He, Y.-T.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Chen, F.-H. Uterine Tumor Resembling an Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Case Report and Review of Literature. World J. Clin. Cases; 2021; 9, pp. 6907-6915. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i23.6907]
79. Müller, M.; Berkes, E.; Fraune, C.; Sauer, M. UTROSCT—Eine seltene, potenziell maligne Differenzialdiagnose der Uterustumoren. Rofo; 2021; 193, pp. 317-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1214-7000]
80. Pereira, S.; Sousa, R.; Constantino, L.; Abrantes, C. When the uterine mass is not a leiomyoma. BMJ Case Rep.; 2021; 14, e243845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2021-243845]
81. Pang, L.; Dai, Y.; Ren, F.; Peng, X.; Guo, Z. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROSCT): Two Case Reports of the Rare Uterine Neoplasm with Literature Review. Curr. Med. Imaging; 2022; 18, pp. 1125-1131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573405618666220325095615]
82. Wang, X.Y.; Zhang, M.C.; Chen, J.; Huang, J.H. Uterine tumor resembling ovarian sex cord tumor: A rare case report. Medicine; 2022; 101, e30414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000030414]
83. Xu, R.; Shao, L.; Zhang, W.; Yang, Z.-L. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: Case Report and Review of the Literature. Asian Biomed.; 2022; 16, pp. 145-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/abm-2022-0018]
84. Shibahara, M.; Kurita, T.; Murakami, M.; Harada, H.; Tsuda, Y.; Hisaoka, M.; Kagami, S.; Matsuura, Y.; Yoshino, K. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Case Report. J. UOEH; 2022; 44, pp. 161-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7888/juoeh.44.161] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35660681]
85. Sahraoui, G.; Sassi, F.; Charfi, L.; Ltaief, F.; Doghri, R.; Mrad, K. Unusual Presentation of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Rare Case Report of Cervical Involvement. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep.; 2023; 108, 108477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2023.108477]
86. Yin, X.; Wang, M.; He, H.; Ru, G.; Zhao, M. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor with Aggressive Histologic Features Harboring a GREB1-NCOA2 Fusion: Case Report with a Brief Review. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2023; 42, pp. 54-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000849] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35081070]
87. Ise, K.; Tanei, Z.I.; Oda, Y.; Tanikawa, S.; Sugino, H.; Ishida, Y.; Tsuda, M.; Gotoda, Y.; Nishiwaki, K.; Yanai, H. et al. A Case of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor with Prominent Myxoid Features. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2024; 43, pp. 41-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000949] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37406360]
88. Zhou, Y.; Chen, Y.H.; Wang, Y.N.; Sun, L. Uterine tumor resembling ovarian sex cord tumor with an abnormal increase in CA125: A case report. Asian J. Surg.; 2023; 46, pp. 2641-2642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.12.149]
89. EL Hayek, P.; Chlala, W.; Younes, K.; Ghaname, W.; Ziadeh, H. Severe Hemoperitoneum from Spontaneous Rupture of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: A Very Rare Case. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.; 2023; 164, pp. 355-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15151]
90. Ferrara, M.; Pecorino, B.; D’Agate, M.G.; Angelico, G.; Capoluongo, E.D.; Malapelle, U.; Pepe, F.; Scollo, P.; Mereu, L. Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. J. Clin. Med.; 2023; 12, 7131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227131]
91. Kantelip, B.; Cloup, N.; Dechelotte, P. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: Report of a Case with Ultrastructural Study. Hum. Pathol.; 1986; 17, pp. 91-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0046-8177(86)80161-7]
92. Malfetano, J.H.; Hussain, M. A Uterine Tumor That Resembled Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: A Low-Grade Sarcoma. Obstet. Gynecol.; 1989; 74, pp. 489-491.
93. Di Vagno, G.; Cormio, G.; Resta, L.; Colucci, G.A.; Provenzano, L.; Selvaggi, L. Uterine Tumour Resembling an Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumour Presenting with Spontaneous Haemoperitoneum in Pregnancy. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.; 1996; 36, pp. 213-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.1996.tb03290.x]
94. Biermann, K.; Heukamp, L.C.; Büttner, R.; Zhou, H. Uterine Tumor Resembling an Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor Associated with Metastasis. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2008; 27, pp. 58-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0b013e318057faf5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18156976]
95. O’Meara, A.C.; Giger, O.T.; Kurrer, M.; Schaer, G. Case Report: Recurrence of a Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor. Gynecol. Oncol.; 2009; 114, pp. 140-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19406461]
96. Blinman, P.; Tattersall, M.H.N. A Case of Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour Responding to Second-Line, Single Agent Anastrazole. Intern. Med. J.; 2009; 39, pp. 617-619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.01998.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19769683]
97. Mačák, J.; Dundr, P.; Dvořáčková, J.; Klát, J. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROSCT). Report of a Case with Lymph Node Metastasis. Cesk Patol.; 2014; 50, pp. 46-49. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24624987]
98. Umeda, S.; Tateno, M.; Miyagi, E.; Sakurai, K.; Tanaka, R.; Tateishi, Y.; Tokinaga, A.; Ohashi, K.; Furuya, M. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROSCT) with Metastasis: Clinicopathological Study of Two Cases. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol.; 2014; 7, pp. 1051-1059. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696722]
99. Endo, D.; Todo, Y.; Okamoto, K.; Suzuki, H. A Case of Recurrent Group II Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors, against Which Two Hormonal Agents Were Ineffective. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol.; 2016; 55, pp. 751-753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2015.04.008]
100. Kuznicki, M.L.; Robertson, S.E.; Hakam, A.; Shahzad, M.M. Metastatic Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep.; 2017; 22, pp. 64-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2017.09.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29034309]
101. Kondo, Y.; Sakaguchi, S.; Mikubo, M.; Naito, M.; Shiomi, K.; Ohbu, M.; Satoh, Y. Lung Metastases of a Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: Report of a Rare Case. Diagn. Cytopathol.; 2018; 46, pp. 88-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.23804]
102. Comert, G.K.; Kilic, C.; Cavusoglu, D.; Turkmen, O.; Karalok, A.; Turan, T.; Basaran, D.; Boran, N. Recurrence in Uterine Tumors with Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor Resemblance: A Case Report and Systematic Review. TJPATH; 2018; 34, pp. 225-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2018.01429]
103. Marrucci, O.; Nicoletti, P.; Mauriello, A.; Facchetti, S.; Patrizi, L.; Ticconi, C.; Sesti, F.; Piccione, E. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Type II with Vaginal Vault Recurrence. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol.; 2019; 2019, 5231219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/5231219]
104. Bennett, J.A.; Lastra, R.R.; Barroeta, J.E.; Parilla, M.; Galbo, F.; Wanjari, P.; Young, R.H.; Krausz, T.; Oliva, E. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Stromal Tumor (UTROSCT): A Series of 3 Cases with Extensive Rhabdoid Differentiation, Malignant Behavior, and ESR1-NCOA2 Fusions. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2020; 44, pp. 1563-1572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001543] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32675660]
105. Chang, B.; Bai, Q.; Liang, L.; Ge, H.; Yao, Q. Recurrent Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors with the Growth Regulation by Estrogen in Breast Cancer 1-Nuclear Receptor Coactivator 2 Fusion Gene: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagn. Pathol.; 2020; 15, 110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13000-020-01025-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32921307]
106. Hassan, A.A.S.; Alsultan, A.A.; Al Ghamdi, R.K.; Albluwi, N.M.; Aljamea, J.H.; AlHammadi, H.M.; Alzakari, M.J.; Almisbah, M.H. Uterine Tumor Resembling Sex-Cord Tumor: A Case Report. Cureus; 2020; 12, e12010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.12010] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33324531]
107. Dimitriadis, G.K.; Wajman, D.S.; Bidmead, J.; Diaz-Cano, S.J.; Arshad, S.; Bakhit, M.; Lewis, D.; Aylwin, S.J.B. Ectopic Hyperprolactinaemia Due to a Malignant Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROCST). Pituitary; 2020; 23, pp. 641-647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-020-01070-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32857272]
108. Dondi, G.; Tesei, M.; De Crescenzo, E.; Boussedra, S.; Giunchi, S.; Perrone, A.M.; De Iaco, P. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: A Case Report of Recurrence after Conservative Management and Review of the Literature. Gynecol. Pelvic Med.; 2021; 4, 42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/gpm-21-5]
109. Devereaux, K.A.; Kertowidjojo, E.; Natale, K.; Ewalt, M.D.; Soslow, R.A.; Hodgson, A. GTF2A1-NCOA2-Associated Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT) Shows Focal Rhabdoid Morphology and Aggressive Behavior. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2021; 45, pp. 1725-1728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001786]
110. Chen, Z.; Lan, J.; Chen, Q.; Lin, D.; Hong, Y. A Novel Case of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor (UTROSCT) Recurrent with GREB1-NCOA2 Fusion. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.; 2021; 152, pp. 266-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13360]
111. Wei, X.; Tang, M.; Liu, L.; Zhao, S. Recurrent Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Case Report and Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Analysis. Res. Sq.; 2021; preprint. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-684877/v1]
112. Massa, G.; Tessari, A.; Damian, S.; Duca, M.; Tamborini, E.; Perrone, F.; Capone, I.; Paolini, B.; Martinetti, A.; Sottotetti, E. et al. Uterine Tumor Resembling Sex-Cord Tumors of the Ovary (Utrosct): A Case of Long-Term Response to Pazopanib. Ann. Case Rep.; 2022; 7, 1090. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29011/2574-7754.101090]
113. Baker, R.J.; Hildebrandt, R.H.; Rouse, R.V.; Hendrickson, M.R.; Longacre, T.A. Inhibin and CD99 (MIC2) Expression in Uterine Stromal Neoplasms with Sex-Cord-like Elements. Hum. Pathol.; 1999; 30, pp. 671-679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0046-8177(99)90093-X]
114. Irving, J.A.; Carinelli, S.; Prat, J. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Are Polyphenotypic Neoplasms with True Sex Cord Differentiation. Mod. Pathol.; 2006; 19, pp. 17-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800475] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118629]
115. Rollins, S.E.; Clement, P.B.; Young, R.H. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors Frequently Have Incorporated Mature Smooth Muscle Imparting a Pseudoinfiltrative Appearance. Mod. Pathol.; 2007; 20, (Suppl. S2), pp. 5A-360A. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.modpathol.3800807]
116. Nogales, F.F.; Stolnicu, S.; Harilal, K.R.; Mooney, E.; García-Galvis, O.F. Retiform Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumours. A Comparative Immunohistochemical Study with Retiform Structures of the Female Genital Tract. Histopathology; 2009; 54, pp. 471-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03244.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19309399]
117. Staats, P.N.; Garcia, J.J.; Dias-Santagata, D.C.; Kuhlmann, G.; Stubbs, H.; McCluggage, W.G.; De Nictolis, M.; Kommoss, F.; Soslow, R.A.; Iafrate, A.J. et al. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors (UTROSCT) Lack the JAZF1-JJAZ1 Translocation Frequently Seen in Endometrial Stromal Tumors. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2009; 33, pp. 1206-1212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181a7b9cf]
118. de Leval, L.; Lim, G.S.D.; Waltregny, D.; Oliva, E. Diverse Phenotypic Profile of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: An Immunohistochemical Study of 12 Cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2010; 34, pp. 1749-1761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181f8120c]
119. Bakula-Zalewska, E.; Danska-Bidzinska, A.; Kowalewska, M.; Piascik, A.; Nasierowska-Guttmejer, A.; Bidzinski, M. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors, a Clinicopathologic Study of Six Cases. Ann. Diagn. Pathol.; 2014; 18, pp. 329-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.08.009]
120. Liu, C.-Y.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, J.-G.; Qu, P.-P. Clinical Experience of Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: A Clinicopathological Analysis of 6 Cases. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol.; 2015; 8, pp. 4158-4164.
121. Stewart, C.J.R.; Crook, M.; Tan, A. SF1 Immunohistochemistry Is Useful in Differentiating Uterine Tumours Resembling Sex Cord-Stromal Tumours from Potential Histological Mimics. Pathology; 2016; 48, pp. 434-440. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.03.013]
122. Moore, M.; McCluggage, W.G. Uterine Tumour Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumour: First Report of a Large Series with Follow-Up. Histopathology; 2017; 71, pp. 751-759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.13296]
123. Croce, S.; Lesluyes, T.; Delespaul, L.; Bonhomme, B.; Pérot, G.; Velasco, V.; Mayeur, L.; Rebier, F.; Ben Rejeb, H.; Guyon, F. et al. GREB1-CTNNB1 Fusion Transcript Detected by RNA-Sequencing in a Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT): A Novel CTNNB1 Rearrangement. Genes Chromosomes Cancer; 2019; 58, pp. 155-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gcc.22694]
124. Dickson, B.C.; Childs, T.J.; Colgan, T.J.; Sung, Y.-S.; Swanson, D.; Zhang, L.; Antonescu, C.R. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Distinct Entity Characterized by Recurrent NCOA2/3 Gene Fusions. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2019; 43, pp. 178-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001153] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30273195]
125. Goebel, E.A.; Hernandez Bonilla, S.; Dong, F.; Dickson, B.C.; Hoang, L.N.; Hardisson, D.; Lacambra, M.D.; Lu, F.-I.; Fletcher, C.D.M.; Crum, C.P. et al. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT): A Morphologic and Molecular Study of 26 Cases Confirms Recurrent NCOA1-3 Rearrangement. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2020; 44, pp. 30-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001348]
126. Kaur, K.; Rajeshwari, M.; Gurung, N.; Kumar, H.; Sharma, M.C.; Yadav, R.; Kumar, S.; Manchanda, S.; Singhal, S.; Mathur, S.R. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Series of Six Cases Displaying Varied Histopathological Patterns and Clinical Profiles. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol.; 2020; 63, pp. S81-S86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_340_19] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32108635]
127. Carbone, M.V.; Cavaliere, A.F.; Fedele, C.; Vidiri, A.; Aciuolo, D.; Zannoni, G.; Scambia, G. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor: Conservative Surgery with Successful Delivery and Case Series. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.; 2021; 256, pp. 326-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.043] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33264692]
128. Ye, S.; Wu, J.; Yao, L.; He, J. Clinicopathological Characteristics and Genetic Variations of Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumours. J. Clin. Pathol.; 2022; 75, pp. 776-781. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2021-207441]
129. Boyraz, B.; Watkins, J.C.; Young, R.H.; Oliva, E. Uterine Tumors Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: A Clinicopathologic Study of 75 Cases Emphasizing Features Predicting Adverse Outcome and Differential Diagnosis. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2023; 47, pp. 234-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001981]
130. Xiong, S.-P.; Luo, R.-Z.; Wang, F.; Yang, X.; Lai, J.-P.; Zhang, C.; Liu, L.-L. PD-L1 Expression, Morphology, and Molecular Characteristic of a Subset of Aggressive Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor and a Literature Review. J. Ovarian Res.; 2023; 16, 102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01183-5]
131. Lu, B.; Xia, Y.; Chen, J.; Tang, J.; Shao, Y.; Yu, W. NCOA1/2/3 Rearrangements in Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Clinicopathological and Molecular Study of 18 Cases. Hum. Pathol.; 2023; 135, pp. 65-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2023.01.001]
132. Bi, R.; Yao, Q.; Ji, G.; Bai, Q.; Li, A.; Liu, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Tu, X.; Yu, L.; Chang, B. et al. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumors: 23 Cases Indicating Molecular Heterogeneity with Variable Biological Behavior. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2023; 47, pp. 739-755. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000002046]
133. Bini, M.; Gantzer, J.; Dufresne, A.; Vanacker, H.; Romeo, C.; Franceschi, T.; Treilleux, I.; Pissaloux, D.; Tirode, F.; Blay, J.-Y. et al. ESR1 Rearrangement as a Diagnostic and Predictive Biomarker in Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor: A Report of Four Cases. JCO Precis. Oncol.; 2023; 7, e2300130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00130]
134. Qijun, C.; Wei, W.; Cheng, W.; Dongni, L. Clinicopathological Features and Molecular Genetic Changes in 17 Cases of Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor. Hum. Pathol.; 2023; 143, pp. 33-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2023.11.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38000680]
135. Fukunaga, M. Adenomyosis with a Sex Cord-like Stromal Element. Pathol. Int.; 2000; 50, pp. 336-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1827.2000.01050.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10849321]
136. D’Angelo, E.; Ali, R.H.; Espinosa, I.; Lee, C.-H.; Huntsman, D.G.; Gilks, B.; Prat, J. Endometrial Stromal Sarcomas with Sex Cord Differentiation Are Associated with PHF1 Rearrangement. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2013; 37, pp. 514-521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318272c612] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23211293]
137. Nogales, F.F.; Stolnicu, S.; Nicolae, A.; Mooney, E.; García-Galvis, O.F. Retiform Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumours [Letter]. Histopathology; 2009; 55, pp. 620-621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03414.x]
138. De Quintal, M.M.; De Angelo Andrade, L.A.L. Endometrial Polyp with Sex Cord-like Pattern. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol.; 2006; 25, pp. 170-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000185409.31427.07] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633067]
139. Murray, S.K.; Clement, P.B.; Young, R.H. Endometrioid Carcinomas of the Uterine Corpus with Sex Cord-like Formations, Hyalinization, and Other Unusual Morphologic Features: A Report of 31 Cases of a Neoplasm That May Be Confused with Carcinosarcoma and Other Uterine Neoplasms. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.; 2005; 29, pp. 157-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000149704.89463.05] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644772]
140. Richmond, A.M.; Rohrer, A.J.; Davidson, S.A.; Post, M.D. Low-Grade Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma with Extensive Sex Cord Differentiation, Heterologous Elements, and Complex Atypical Hyperplasia: Case Report and Review of Literature. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep.; 2017; 19, pp. 34-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2016.12.002] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28054022]
141. Kao, Y.-C.; Lee, J.-C. An Update of Molecular Findings in Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor and GREB1-Rearranged Uterine Sarcoma with Variable Sex-Cord Differentiation. Genes Chromosomes Cancer; 2021; 60, pp. 180-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gcc.22909]
142. Burg, L.C.; Kruitwagen, R.F.P.M.; de Jong, A.; Bulten, J.; Bonestroo, T.J.J.; Kraayenbrink, A.A.; Boll, D.; Lambrechts, S.; Smedts, H.P.M.; Bouman, A. et al. Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Presumed Low- and Intermediate-Risk Endometrial Cancer Management (SLIM): A Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study in The Netherlands. Cancers; 2022; 15, 271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010271]
143. Di Spiezio Sardo, A.; De Angelis, M.C.; Della Corte, L.; Carugno, J.; Zizolfi, B.; Guadagno, E.; Gencarelli, A.; Cecchi, E.; Simoncini, T.; Bifulco, G. et al. Should Endometrial Biopsy under Direct Hysteroscopic Visualization Using the Grasp Technique Become the New Gold Standard for the Preoperative Evaluation of the Patient with Endometrial Cancer?. Gynecol. Oncol.; 2020; 158, pp. 347-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.012]
144. Vitale, S.G.; Watrowski, R.; Barra, F.; D’Alterio, M.N.; Carugno, J.; Sathyapalan, T.; Kahramanoglu, I.; Reyes-Muñoz, E.; Lin, L.-T.; Urman, B. et al. Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in Perimenopausal Women: The Role of Hysteroscopy and Its Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality. Diagnostics; 2022; 12, 1176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051176] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35626331]
145. Russo, C.; Camilli, S.; Martire, F.G.; Di Giovanni, A.; Lazzeri, L.; Malzoni, M.; Zupi, E.; Exacoustos, C. Ultrasound Features of Highly Vascularized Uterine Myomas (Uterine Smooth Muscle Tumors) and Correlation with Histopathology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.; 2022; 60, pp. 269-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.24855] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35018681]
146. Ludovisi, M.; Moro, F.; Pasciuto, T.; Di Noi, S.; Giunchi, S.; Savelli, L.; Pascual, M.A.; Sladkevicius, P.; Alcazar, J.L.; Franchi, D. et al. Imaging in Gynecological Disease (15): Clinical and Ultrasound Characteristics of Uterine Sarcoma. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.; 2019; 54, pp. 676-687. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.20270] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30908820]
147. Cotrino, I.; Carosso, A.; Macchi, C.; Baima Poma, C.; Cosma, S.; Ribotta, M.; Viora, E.; Sciarrone, A.; Borella, F.; Zola, P. Ultrasound and Clinical Characteristics of Uterine Smooth Muscle Tumors of Uncertain Malignant Potential (STUMPs). Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.; 2020; 251, pp. 167-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.05.040]
148. Ruscelli, M.; Maloberti, T.; Corradini, A.G.; Rosini, F.; Querzoli, G.; Grillini, M.; Altimari, A.; Gruppioni, E.; Sanza, V.; Costantino, A. et al. Prognostic Impact of Pathologic Features in Molecular Subgroups of Endometrial Carcinoma. J. Pers. Med.; 2023; 13, 723. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050723]
149. de Biase, D.; Maloberti, T.; Corradini, A.G.; Rosini, F.; Grillini, M.; Ruscelli, M.; Coluccelli, S.; Altimari, A.; Gruppioni, E.; Sanza, V. et al. Integrated Clinicopathologic and Molecular Analysis of Endometrial Carcinoma: Prognostic Impact of the New ESGO-ESTRO-ESP Endometrial Cancer Risk Classification and Proposal of Histopathologic Algorithm for Its Implementation in Clinical Practice. Front. Med. (Lausanne); 2023; 10, 1146499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1146499]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Palumbo, Mario 2
; Guerra, Serena 2 ; Gallo, Alessandra 2
; Zizolfi, Brunella 2 ; Giampaolino, Pierluigi 2 ; Bifulco, Giuseppe 2 ; Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo 2
; De Angelis, Maria Chiara 2 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helios Hospital Müllheim, 79379 Müllheim, Germany; Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
2 Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, 80138 Naples, Italy;