medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2018, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2018; 63 (2)

Uterine adenosarcoma: an entity to be taken into account

Zárate SD, Reyes CH, Von Der Meden AW, Pérez QM

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 146-150
PDF size: 274.26 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Uterine adenosarcomas are mixed neoplasms in which there is a benign epithelial component and a malignant stromal element (sarcomatous). They are considered low-grade neoplasias, and generally have low malignant potential and a good prognosis. They are rare neoplasms, corresponding to 8% of all uterine sarcomas. The most common symptom is abnormal uterine bleeding. In patients with sarcomatoid growth, the rate of recurrence is 77%, in comparison to those who do not present it (23%), thus reducing the five-year survival rate to 50%. Our objective is to present the case of a uterine adenosarcoma, a rare entity that represents 0.2% of all malignant neoplasms of the uterus and manifests with a clinical picture of a benign pathology, as an endometrial polyp. We report the clinical case of a 51-year-old female patient with abnormal uterine bleeding of six months of evolution; she was managed with hormonal therapy, without improvement of the symptomatology. An ultrasonographic study was performed, and it reported an image compatible with endometrial polyps; she underwent a total laparoscopic hysterectomy, with a definitive histopathological report of uterine adenosarcoma in non-invasive stage. She is currently asymptomatic and has no tumor activity data. Uterine adenosarcoma is a differential diagnosis of benign uterine lesions (endometrial polyp, submucous myomas, and endometrial hyperplasias), mainly in postmenopause.


REFERENCES

  1. Clement PB, Scully RE. Mullerian adenosarcoma of the uterus: a clinicopathologic analysis of 100 cases with a review of the literature. Hum Pathol. 1990; 21 (4): 363-381.

  2. Verschraegen CF, Vasuratna A, Edwards C, Freedman R, Kudelka AP, Tornos C et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of mullerian adenosarcoma: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Oncol Rep. 1998; 5 (4): 939-944.

  3. D’Angelo E, Prat J. Uterine sarcomas: a review. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 116 (1): 131-139.

  4. Krentel H, De Wilde RL. Submucous uterine adenosarcoma —minimally invasive treatment. World J Surg Oncol. 2016; 14 (1): 271.

  5. Kanngurn S, Somran J, Art-Ong C, Lamlertthon W, Porncharoenpong S. Primary peritoneal adenosarcoma with stromal overgrowth and fetal type cartilage: a case report and literature review. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005; 88 (6): 849-854.

  6. Gallardo A, Prat J. Mullerian adenosarcoma: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 55 cases challenging the existence of adenofibroma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009; 33 (2): 278-288.

  7. Nathenson MJ, Ravi V, Fleming N, Wang WL, Conley A. Uterine adenosarcoma: a review. Curr Oncol Rep. 2016; 18 (11): 68.

  8. Pinto A, Howitt B. Uterine adenosarcoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140 (3): 286-290.

  9. Clarke BA, Mulligan AM, Irving JA, McCluggage WG, Oliva E. Müllerian adenosarcomas with unusual growth patterns: staging issues. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011; 30 (4): 340-347.

  10. Abeler VM, Nenodovic M. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry in uterine sarcomas: a study of 397 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011; 30 (3): 236-243.

  11. Van Mieghem T, Abeler VM, Moerman P, Verbist L, Vergote I, Amant F. CD10, estrogen and progesterone receptor expression in ovarian adenosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 99 (2): 493-496.

  12. Prat J. FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 104 (3): 177-178.

  13. Abeler VM, Rřyne O, Thoresen S, Danielsen HE, Nesland JM, Kristensen GB. Uterine sarcomas in Norway. A histopathological and prognostic survey of a total population from 1970 to 2000 including 419 patients. Histopathology. 2009; 54 (3): 355-364.

  14. Carroll A, Ramirez PT, Westin SN, Soliman PT, Munsell MF, Nick AM et al. Uterine adenosarcoma: an analysis on management, outcomes, and risk factors for recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 135 (3): 455-461.

  15. Friedlander ML, Covens A, Glasspool RM, Hilpert F, Kristensen G, Kwon S et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for mullerian adenosarcoma of the female genital tract. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014; 24 (9 Suppl 3): S78-S82.

  16. Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Cho KR et al. Uterine sarcoma, Version 1.2016: Featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015; 13 (11): 1321-1331.

  17. Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. The impact of tumor morcellation during surgery on the outcomes of patients with apparently early low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma of the uterus. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18 (12): 3453-3461.

  18. Krivak TC, Seidman JD, McBroom JW, MacKoul PJ, Aye LM, Rose GS. Uterine adenosarcoma with sarcomatous overgrowth versus uterine carcinosarcoma: comparison of treatment and survival. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83 (1): 89-94.

  19. Brooks SE, Zhan M, Cote T, Baquet CR. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results analysis of 2677 cases of uterine sarcoma 1989-1999. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 93 (1): 204-208.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com