Next Article in Journal
A Multicomponent Primary-Care Intervention for Preventing Falls in Older Adults Living in the Community: The PREMIO Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Endometriosis-Related Ovarian Cancer: Where Are We Now? A Narrative Review towards a Pragmatic Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Scheimpflug Corneal Densitometry Patterns at the Graft–Host Interface in DMEK and DSAEK: A 12-Month Longitudinal Comparative Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

by
Martina Ferrara
1,*,
Basilio Pecorino
1,
Maria Gabriella D’Agate
1,
Giuseppe Angelico
2,
Ettore Domenico Capoluongo
3,
Umberto Malapelle
4,
Francesco Pepe
4,
Paolo Scollo
1 and
Liliana Mereu
5,*
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cannizzaro Hospital, University of Enna “Kore”, 94100 Enna, Italy
2
Department of Anatomic Pathology and Histology, Cannizzaro Hospital, 95100 Catania, Italy
3
Department of Clinical Pathology and Genomics, Cannizzaro Hospital, 95100 Catania, Italy
4
Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80126 Naples, Italy
5
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Policlinico G Rodolico, CHIRMED, University of Catania, 95124 Catania, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(22), 7131; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227131
Submission received: 13 September 2023 / Revised: 18 October 2023 / Accepted: 14 November 2023 / Published: 16 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Update on Laparoscopic Management of Gynecologic Malignancies)

Abstract

:
Uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors (UTROSCT) are thought to develop from pluripotent uterine mesenchymal cells or endometrial stromal cells with secondary sex-cord differentiation. The patient was a 73-year-old postmenopausal woman who had abnormal vaginal bleeding, and she underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The diagnosis was a case of UTROSCT. A scoping review of the UTROSCT case report present in the literature has been conducted, and 63 articles were found, of which 45 were considered for the 66 clinical cases examined. At the time of diagnosis, six metastatic localizations were found in 59 patients undergoing demolitive surgery (10.2%). Recurrences were diagnosed in 13/59 (22%) patients with multiple locations. A molecular study was performed in 18/66 cases (27.3%) and genetic alterations were found in 10/18 (55.6%) patients. UTROSCTs are considered rare uterine tumors, typically with a favorable prognosis, and are generally considered to have a good prognosis. But, from the review done, they may already manifest themselves at advanced stages, with the possibility of recurrences even at a distance. It would, therefore, be important to be able to define the most aggressive forms and, perhaps, molecular investigation with sequencing could help identify patients most at risk.

1. Introduction

Endometrial stromal tumors are not very frequent, and, occasionally, they might be difficult to diagnose. Uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors (UTROSCTs), which are uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors, were initially characterized by Morehead and Bowman in 1945 [1].
Then, based on clinical and histopathologic characteristics, Clement and Scully, in 1976, characterized 14 similar cases and further divided the neoplasms into two separate types [2].
Type I, endometrial stromal tumor with sex-cord-like elements (ESTCLEs) shows a predominant endometrial stromal pattern with areas of sex-cord-like structures that make up approximately 10–40% of the total tumor mass. The tumors are known as endometrial stromal tumors with sex-cord-like components and have a risk of metastasis and recurrence (ESTSCLEs) [3,4].
UTROSCTs, or type II uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors, are uncommon and often behave benignly [5].
The latest World Health Organization classification of female genital tumors, recognized in 2020, defined UTROSCT as a uterine tumor similar in shape to ovarian sex-cord tumors and further clarified that there is no discernible endometrial stromal component in this tumor tissue [6].
Our clinical case encouraged us to study the literature on this rare tumor to evaluate its behavior and prognosis.

2. Material and Method

2.1. Study Design

We conducted a scoping review, which allows a broad search while performing a systematic search, even though it does not require methodological appraisal or grading of the evidence [7].

2.2. Systematic Database Search

The electronic literature search was conducted from 1996 to November 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE for English language abstracts. The search included the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords: ‘uterine tumor resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors’, ‘UTROSCT’, and ‘case report’ studies published in English.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

We included case reports or series, and other descriptive studies regarding the abovementioned research question. Literature reviews and guidelines published by scientific societies were also considered.

2.4. Exclusion Criteria

We excluded case reports and case series that did not report personal data, surgery, diagnosis, and immunohistochemistry.

2.5. Study Selection

The papers were retrieved by two authors independently; Mendeley was used to store the articles and delete duplicates. The two researchers screened all record titles and abstracts by using PUBMED; those with insufficient information were screened in full text. Disagreement between the reviewers was solved by discussion after reading the full text. The literature search was stopped in November 2022.

3. Case Report

The patient was a 73 year old postmenopausal woman with a history of four pregnancies (two full-term live births; two abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy) who had a history of irregular, abnormal vaginal bleeding for a few days. There was no family history of gynecological cancer. At physical examination, she was found to be in good general health, alert, and pale, with a flaccid abdomen and no signs of peritoneal irritation. At pelvic examination, the uterine volume appeared to be increased by two times the standard volume. The endometrial thickness was recorded at 18 mm by transvaginal ultrasonography and without evidence of uterine masses. Laboratory blood tests showed no significant abnormalities. In May 2022, the patient underwent operative hysteroscopy. Histopathology of the curettings showed endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. The patient, made aware of the risks of the surgery, asked to undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. In addition, she received anti-inflammatory, rehydration, and anticoagulation therapy conventionally after surgery. After 28 h postsurgery, no intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred. After follow ups of 12 months and every six months, no recurrence occurred.

3.1. Pathological Features

Macroscopic examination showed multiple nodule lesions within the myometrium whose diameters ranged between 0.5 to 6 cm. All nodules except one showed macroscopic and microscopic features consistent with leiomyomas. On the other hand, a nodular lesion, measuring 2.5 cm in its greatest diameter, showed a yellowish cut surface and a solid consistency. Histologically, the neoplasia showed a diffuse pattern of growth with an alternating cord-like pattern and tubular and trabecular areas. (Figure 1A–C). Only focally large trabeculae were observed. Neoplastic cells were small in size and showed epithelioid morphology, with round, slightly irregular nuclei and scant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 1D). Morphological features, such as necrosis, mitotic activity, lymphovascular invasion, and infiltrative margins, were not observed.
Through immunohistochemistry, neoplastic cells showed immunoreactivity for mesenchymal (vimentin, desmin) and epithelial (pan-cytokeratin AE1/AE3) markers. Estrogen and progesterone receptors were also positive. Moreover, the immunoreactivity for markers of sex-cord differentiation, including calretinin, CD99, CD56, and WT1 was also observed (Figure 2a–d). On the other hand, neoplastic cells were negative for smooth muscle actin, caldesmon, HMB45, Melan-A, and CD10. Based on the abovementioned morphological and immunohistochemical findings, the diagnosis of a uterine tumor resembling an ovarian sex-cord tumor (UTROSCT) was rendered.

3.2. Tissue-Sample Management

Overall, a series of four slides (5 microns) and a matching hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained section was assessed for molecular analysis. The tumor tissue was manually microdissected by adopting a sterile blade and incubated overnight (O.N) at 56 °C with proteinase K. After this, nucleic acids were purified following the manufacturer instructions of the AllPrep DNA/RNA Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) [8]. Briefly, genomic RNA (gRNA) was recovered on a proprietary filter column and eluted in 30 µL of DNAse and RNAse-free water (Thermo Fisher Scientifics, Waltham, MA, USA) in accordance with standardized procedures [8]. Finally, gRNA was evaluated on the TapeStation 4200 microfluidic platform adopting a dedicated ScreenTape device (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). This system enables the calculation of the RNA concentration (pg/µL) and the RNA Integrity Number (RIN), a measurement of RNA fragmentation. The sample was stored at −20 °C until molecular analysis [9].

3.3. NGS Analysis

Molecular analysis was carried out by adopting an Oncomine Precision Assay (OPA) panel on a fully automatized Genexus platform (Thermofisher Scientifics) following manufacturer procedures. Briefly, this platform allows for the automatic analysis of DNA/RNA samples (from library preparation to data interpretation) within 24 h. The OPA assay covers 50 cancer-related actionable genes, including the most common intergenic fusions in n = 16 actionable genes (ALK, ROS1, NTRK1-3, RET, FGFR1-3, NRG1, RSPO2-3, NUTM, ESR1, BRAF, and NRG1). Briefly, a sample sheet was generated on a dedicated server and assigned to a new run. The NGS platform was manually loaded with OPA primers, strip solutions, strip reagents, and supplies according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A total of 10 ng was dispensed into a 96-well plate and put on the Genexus platform. Finally, a sequence analysis was carried out on the GX5TM chip that allows for simultaneous processing of n = 8 samples in a single line by adopting an OPA assay. Data analysis was performed on the proprietary Genexus software, as recommended by the manufacturer’s guidelines. Particularly, detected alterations were annotated by adopting Oncomine Knowledgebase Reporter Software (Oncomine Reporter 5.0) [10,11]. A microfluidic analysis highlighted an RNA concentration of 858.0 pg/µL. Moreover, fragmentation analysis revealed a DIN of 2.8. From a technical point of view, a median number of 1,215,781.0 total reads, 59,296.0 mapped reads, and 95 mean read lengths were identified, respectively. No clinically relevant aberrant transcripts in cancer-related genes covered by the OPA assay were detected (Table 1).

4. Results

After the search that included the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords ‘uterine tumor resembling ovarian sex-cord tumors’, ‘UTROSCT’, and ‘case report’ of studies published in English was completed, 63 articles were found, of which 45 were considered for a total of 66 clinical cases examined (Figure 3). The 66 patients examined were aged between 22 and 77 years old (average age 49.7 years). All patients underwent immunohistochemical investigation, which contributed to the differential diagnosis, validating the diagnosis of UTROSCT. For 4/66 (6%) patients, a follow up is not reported. The clinical cases that have been subjected to molecular investigation are 14/66 (21.2%). Thirty-seven out of 66 patients (56.1%) underwent subtotal/total hysterectomy with bilateral salpigo-oophorectomy (H-BSO), 10/66 (15.1%) underwent subtotal/total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy (H-BS), and 12/66 (18.2%) underwent total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and removal of pelvic and/or aortic lymph nodes. Finally, 7 patients underwent conservative surgery, of which 5/66 (7.6%) underwent hysteroscopy and 2/66 (3%) underwent myomectomy. At the time of diagnosis, six metastatic localizations were found in 59 patients undergoing demolitive surgery (10.2%). In particular, the following were highlighted: 2/12 (16.7%) localizations of lymph node metastases in patients subjected to the removal of pelvic and/or aortic lymph nodes, 2/49 (4.1%) localizations of ovarian metastases in patients subjected to HBSO/HBSO + lymphadenectomy, and 2/59 (3.4%) localizations of cervical metastases in patients undergoing total hysterectomy. Follow-up was performed in 59/66 patients. The mean duration of follow up was 45.9 months (1–384 months). Two out of seven patients undergoing conservative surgery had no follow up, and none of the patients treated with conservative surgery had a recurrence. Clinical cases treated with demolitive surgery were 59/66 (89.4%); of these, 5/59 (8.5%) did not perform a follow up. Recurrences were diagnosed in 13/59 (22%) patients with multiple locations. Local recurrences involved the ovary, vaginal vault, and pelvic peritoneum. Distant recurrences were localized in the peritoneum, liver, intestine, lung, and lymph nodes (Table 2).
The molecular analysis was performed in 18/66 cases (27.3%). Eight of 18 patients (44.4%) showed no genetic alterations. Genetic alterations were found in 10/18 (55.6%) patients, such as 3/18 (16.7%) fusion of the GREB–NCOA1/2 genes, 3/18 (16.7%) fusion of the ERS1–NCOA2 genes, 2/18 (11%) fusion of the JAZF1–SUZ12 genes, 1/18 (5.6%) GREB1–CTNNB1 fusion transcript detected, and 1/18 (5.6%) translocations of t(X;6)(p22.3;q23.1) and t(4;18)(q21.1;q21.3). Five out of ten (50%) patients with genetic alteration developed disease recurrence and 1/10 (10%) patients had a metastasis at the time of diagnosis.

5. Discussion

UTROSCT is a relatively rare disease. About 70 cases of UTROSCT have been described in the literature. The tumor typically affects postmenopausal women and women of childbearing age. The age of onset ranges from 20 to 86 years; the median age is 51 years. The most common symptom is abnormal uterine bleeding or pelvic pain, but it can occur asymptomatically [6,7]. The tumor size ranges from 4 mm to 135 mm (on average 47.6 mm). This type of uterine tumor cannot be suspected using any of the instrumental tests we use (US, CT, or MRI), the precise diagnosis is established with tissue biopsy. According to histology, the tumors are made up of nests that resemble sex cords and epithelioid cells [4].
Studies have revealed that most UTROSCTs are positive for at least two sex-cord-labeled antibodies (CD99, calretinin, melan A, and inhibin), which are frequently joined by smooth muscle (SMA, desmin, and calponin), endometrial stromal (CD10), and other antibodies (vimentin, ER, and PR) with varying degrees of expression. This is true even though immunohistochemical markers did not reveal any specific targets [55].
Taking into consideration their rarity, only a few studies have explored the molecular alterations of UTROSCT. Mutations frequently occurring in ovarian sex-cord tumors, such as FOXL2 or DICER1, have not been observed in UTROSCT. Moreover, JAZF1–SUZ12 gene fusion, usually observed in endometrial stromal neoplasms has not been described in UTROSCT [3].
However, recent studies demonstrated that the majority of UTROSCTs carry recurrent NCOA2/3 gene fusions previously discovered in Mullerian adenosarcoma and undifferentiated uterine sarcoma. UTROSCT-harboring NCOA2/3 gene fusions have been shown to occur mainly in premenopausal patients and show unequivocal morphological and immunohistochemical evidence of sex-cord differentiation [56].
Moreover, rare UTROSCT cases showing fusions involving the GREB1 gene have also been reported. These latter cases have been shown to occur in older women and may show local recurrences [57].
Despite the fact that the majority of the UTROSCTs behave benignly, they are typically regarded as tumors with low malignant potential [6]. The most frequent treatment pattern (65.1%) was total hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy, followed by total hysterectomy alone (18.6%), and mass resection alone (14%), respectively [58].
However, the uncertain behavior of the UTROSCTs emerged from this scoping review. In fact, we found that, in 10.2% of cases, metastases were found at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, 22% of the cases in the literature with long-term follow up found the onset of recurrences with local localization (ovarian, vaginal, and pelvic) or metastasis (peritoneal, hepatic, lymph node, and pulmonary). This highlights the behavior of a pathology with an uncertain course, which deserves greater attention. To this end, on the basis of this scoping review, we underline the need to undertake an individualized treatment on the patient that can take into consideration the communication to the same of this pathology and, therefore, propose demolitive surgery in the first instance. If the patient wishes to perform conservative treatment, she must be informed of the risks of recurrence and the need to carry out close follow ups. To this must be added the importance of adding genetic investigation to the histological and molecular investigation, which can guide the choice of the clinician for the purpose of better management of the clinical case.

6. Conclusions

Until now, UTROSCTs, according to the WHO, are benign in most cases but should be considered to have low malignant potential because they may recur. Hysterectomy and mass resection alone are potential therapeutic options if risk indicators for recurrence, like genetic alteration, are not present. We, therefore, suggest considering this pathology to have uncertain behavior, carefully counseling the patient, and showing the risks of metastasis and recurrences, and, therefore, also personalizing treatment on the basis of molecular and genetic investigations.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. 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, 512–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. 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, 1051–1059. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Pradhan, D.; Mohanty, S.K. Uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2013, 137, 1832–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. 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, 4158–4164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. De Luca, C.; Pepe, F.; Iaccarino, A.; Pisapia, P.; Righi, L.; Listì, A.; Greco, L.; Gragnano, G.; Campione, S.; De Dominicis, G.; et al. RNA-Based Assay for Next-Generation Sequencing of Clinically Relevant Gene Fusions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancers 2021, 13, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Malapelle, U.; Parente, P.; Pepe, F.; De Luca, C.; Cerino, P.; Covelli, C.; Balestrieri, M.; Russo, G.; Bonfitto, A.; Pisapia, P.; et al. Impact of Pre-Analytical Factors on MSI Test Accuracy in Mucinous Colorectal Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-Assay Concordance Study. Cells 2020, 9, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ilié, M.; Hofman, V.; Bontoux, C.; Heeke, S.; Lespinet-Fabre, V.; Bordone, O.; Lassalle, S.; Lalvée, S.; Tanga, V.; Allegra, M.; et al. Setting Up an Ultra-Fast Next-Generation Sequencing Approach as Reflex Testing at Diagnosis of Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer; Experience of a Single Center (LPCE, Nice, France). Cancers 2022, 14, 2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sheffield, B.S.; Beharry, A.; Diep, J.; Perdrizet, K.; Iafolla, M.A.J.; Raskin, W.; Dudani, S.; Brett, M.A.; Starova, B.; Olsen, B.; et al. Point of Care Molecular Testing: Community-Based Rapid Next-Generation Sequencing to Support Cancer Care. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 1326–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. 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, 432–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. 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, 1563–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. 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, 808–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. 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, 58–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Czernobilsky, B.; Mamet, Y.; David, M.B.; Atlas, I.; Gitstein, G.; Lifschitz-Mercer, B. Uterine retiform sertoli-leydig cell tumor: Report of a case providing additional evidence that uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors have a histologic and immunohistochemical phenotype of genuine sex cord tumors. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2005, 24, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. 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, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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, 2311–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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, 4703521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. 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, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gill, S.J.; Pirzada, A.; Power, P.; Neveu, J. A Constellation of Rare Gynecological Malignancies and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Gastrointestinal Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2022, 41, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. 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, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. 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. 2015, 15, 22–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 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, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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, S81–S86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Khalifa, M.A.; Hansen, C.H.; Moore, J.L., Jr.; Rusnock, E.J.; Lage, J.M. Endometrial stromal sarcoma with focal smooth muscle differentiation: Recurrence after 17 years: A follow-up report with discussion of the nomenclature. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 1996, 15, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cömert, G.K.; Kiliç, Ç.; Çavuşoğlu, D.; Türkmen, O.; Karalok, A.; Turan, T.; Başaran, D.; Boran, N. Recurrence in Uterine Tumors with Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumor Resemblance: A Case Report and Systematic Review. Turk. Patoloji Derg. 2018, 34, 225–233. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. 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, 88–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. 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, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. 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, 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  37. 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, Erratum in Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 2020, 5205723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. 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. 2016, 19, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. 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, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. 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, 1089–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. 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, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. 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, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. 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, 942–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. 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, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Tatar, B.; Yalcin, Y.; Kursat Bozkurt, K.; Erdemoglu, E.; Kapucuoglu, N.; Erdemoglu, E. Uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors: A case report with adenomyosis and complex hyperplasia with atypia. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2016, 37, 726–728. [Google Scholar]
  48. 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, QD05–QD07. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. 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, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. 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, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. 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, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. 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, 1339–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. 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, 6907–6915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Fan, L.; Shen, Y.; Chanda, K.; Ren, M.L. Uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex-cord tumor: A case report and literature review. J. Can. Res. Ther. 2018, 14, S1209–S1212. [Google Scholar]
  56. Blake, T.B.E.A.; Sheridan, K.L.; Wang, T.; Takiuchi, M.; Kodama, K.; Sawada, K. Matsuo 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, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. 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, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. 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, 266–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Haematoxylin and eosin-stained sections illustrate the histopathological features of the present case. (A): On low power (4×) a hypercellular tumor with pushing margins is observed. (B,C): On medium power (10×), different patterns of growth were evident; neoplastic cells with diffuse patterns of growth (B) or arranged in tubules (C). (D): on high power (40×), neoplastic cells showed epithelioid morphology, with round, slightly irregular nuclei, and scant eosinophilic cytoplasm without evidence of nuclear atypia or mitotic figure.
Figure 1. Haematoxylin and eosin-stained sections illustrate the histopathological features of the present case. (A): On low power (4×) a hypercellular tumor with pushing margins is observed. (B,C): On medium power (10×), different patterns of growth were evident; neoplastic cells with diffuse patterns of growth (B) or arranged in tubules (C). (D): on high power (40×), neoplastic cells showed epithelioid morphology, with round, slightly irregular nuclei, and scant eosinophilic cytoplasm without evidence of nuclear atypia or mitotic figure.
Jcm 12 07131 g001
Figure 2. Immunohistochemical stains for markers of sex-cord differentiation: (a): Carletinin; (b): WT1; (c): CD99; and (d): CD56.
Figure 2. Immunohistochemical stains for markers of sex-cord differentiation: (a): Carletinin; (b): WT1; (c): CD99; and (d): CD56.
Jcm 12 07131 g002
Figure 3. Flow diagram for scoping reviews, which included searches of PUBMED.
Figure 3. Flow diagram for scoping reviews, which included searches of PUBMED.
Jcm 12 07131 g003
Table 1. Scoping review of case report and case series of literature. H + BSO: hysterectomy + bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; H + BS: hysterectomy + bilateral salpingectomy; H + BSO + LND: hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection; F-U: follow up; RT: radiotherapy; CHT: chemotherapy.
Table 1. Scoping review of case report and case series of literature. H + BSO: hysterectomy + bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; H + BS: hysterectomy + bilateral salpingectomy; H + BSO + LND: hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection; F-U: follow up; RT: radiotherapy; CHT: chemotherapy.
N.Article, YearPatientRisk FactorSurgeryMetastasisImmunohistochemical AntibodiesGene Fusion and Somatic Mutation AnalysesDiagnosisAdjuvant TherapyFollow UpRecurrence
1Abdullazade et al., 2010 [12]
Case series
Case 1: 46 year old
Case 2: 30 year old
Case 3: 42 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 1: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 2: Myomectomy
Case 3: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 1: CD56+, Calretinin+, Inhibin,+ Desmin+, AE1/AE3+
Case 2: Inhibin+
Case 3: CD56, Calretinin+, Inhibin+, Desmin+, AE1/AE+
Not PerformedCase 1, 3: UTROSCTCase 1, 3: -Case 1: 24 months
Case 2: Not revealed
Case 3: Lost in follow-up
Case 1: -
Case 2: Not revealed
Case 3: Not revealed
2Bennett et al., Nov. 2020 [13]
Case series
Case 1: 37 year old
Case 2: 54 year old
Case 3: 30 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 1: Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy
Case 2: Supracervical Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 3: Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy
-Case 1, 2:
  • WT1+
  • CAM5.2 +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • CD56 +
  • AE1/AE3 +
Case 3:
  • WT1 +
  • CAM5.2 +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • CD56 +
  • Calretinin +
  • Desmin +
  • Melan-A +
  • CD10 +
Case 1, 2, 3: ESR1–NCOA2 fusion detectedCase 1, 2, 3: UTROSCTCase 1: -
Case 2: - Case 3: -
Case 1: 84 months
Case 2: 108 months
Case 3: 384 months
Case 1: Left pelvic sidewall recurrence
Case 2: Pelvic recurrence
Case 3: Omental recurrence
3Berretta et al., May 2009 [14]
Case report
1, 26 year old-Operative Hysteroscopy-
  • Desmin +
  • Actin SM/calponin +
  • α-inhibin +
  • Calretinin +
  • Progesteron receptor (PR) +
  • CD99 +
  • WT-1 +
  • Ki-67 increased
Not PerformedUTROSCT-Not RevealedNot Revealed
4Biermann et al., Jan 2008 [15]
Case report
1, 68 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Inhibin +
  • CD99 +
  • CD56 +
  • Pancytokeratin +
  • Cytokeratin 18 +
  • Vimentin +
  • Calretinin +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
No fusion transcript detectedUTROSCT-48 monthsSmall Bowel
5Chang et al., 2020 [16]
Case report
1, 57 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Progesterone receptor +
  • Estrogen receptor +
  • Desmin +
  • WT-1 +
  • CD56 +
  • CD99 +
  • Ki-67 increased
GREB1–NCOA2 fusion geneUTROSCT-30 monthsPelvic nodule 6.0 × 5.0 cm treated with chemotherapy (3 cycles of paclitaxel liposome and carboplatin)
6Croce et al., Jan. 2019 [17]
Case report
1, 70 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • CD10 +
  • Desmin +
  • AE1-AE3 +
  • EMA +
  • CK8/18 +
  • Calretinin +
  • WT-1 +
  • Melan A +
GREB1–CTNNB1 fusion transcript detectedUTROSCT(I Time)
-
(II Time)
Aromatase inhibitors
(I Time)
17 months
(II Time)
12 months
(I Time)
Widespread pelvic nodule
(II Time)
Lung metastases and abdominal peritoneal recurrence
7Czernobilsky et al., 2005 [18]
Case report
1, 63 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • CK18 +
  • Inhibin +
  • Vimentin +
  • Calretinin +
  • Progesterone Receptor (PR)+
Not PerformedUTROSCT-13 months-
8Dubruc et al., Feb. 2019 [19]
Case report
1, 56 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • CKAE1/AE +
  • Smooth muscle actin +
  • Desmin +
  • Calretinin +
  • Inhibin +
  • MelanA +
  • CD99 +
  • CD56 +
  • WT1 +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-4 months-
9Ehdaivand et al., Jul. 2014 [20]
Case report
1, 47 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-Not RevealedNot PerformedUTROSCT-24 months-
10Garcia et al., Jul. 2018 [21]
Case report
1, 46 year old-(I Surgery)
Vaginal myomectomy
(II Surgery after diagnosis)
Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
-
  • CD56 +
  • Smooth muscle actin +
  • CD10 +
  • Desmin +
  • Pan-cytokeratin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-60 months-
11Garuti et al., Dec. 2008 [22]
Case report
1, 27 year old-Operative Hysteroscopy-
  • CD99 +
  • α-inhibin +
  • Calretinin +
  • Cytokeratin +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER)+
Not PerformedUTROSCT-13 months-
12Gill et al., 2021 [23]
Case report
1, 46 year oldAPC gene positiveHysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, bilateral pelvic sentinel lymph node biopsy
+
Proctocolectomy and transduodenal ampullectomy
-
  • β-catenin+
  • Cyclin D1+
  • Bcl2+
  • CD10+
  • Estrogen receptor (ER)+
Not PerformedUTROSCT
+
Endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma G1 (FIGO Stage II)
+
Adenocarcinoma of the colon
Adjuvant RadiotherapyNot Revealed-
13Giordano et al., Sep. 2010 [24]
Case series
Case 1: 26 year old
Case 2: 46 year old
Case 1, 2: -Case 1: Operative Hysteroscopy
Case 2: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 1: -
Case 2: cervix
Case 1: Calretinin +, CD99+, α-actin+, Cytokeratin+
Case 2: Calretinin+, CD10+, EMA+, Cytokeratin+
Not PerformedCase 1, 2: UTROSCTCase 1, 2: -Case 1:
15 months
Case 2: Not revealed
Case 1, 2: -
14Gomes et al., Nov. 2015 [25]
Case report
1, 53 year old-(I Surgery)
Supracervical hysterectomy
(II Surgery after diagnosis)
Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, parametrectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, and uterine cervical resection
Cervix, right parametrium, and right ovarium hilum
  • Vimentin +
  • CD99 +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • WT-1 +
  • CD10 +
  • Melan-A +
  • Inhibin +
  • Desmin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT4 cycles of adjuvant-modified BEP (bleomycin + cisplatin+ etoposide)60 months-
15Grither et al., Sept 2020 [26]
Case report
1, 69 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • CD10 +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • Calretinin +
  • Vimentin +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Inhibin +
Somatic GREB1–NCOA1 fusionUTROSCT-8 months-
16Hashmi et al. 2014 [27]
Case report
1, 48 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy -
  • Vimentin +
  • CD99 +
  • S100 +
  • Pancytokeratin immunostain +
  • Desmin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-Not RevealedNot Revealed
17Hauptmann et al., May. 2001 [28]
Case report
1, 49 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy-
  • Vimentin +
  • Pancytokeratin +
  • EMA +
  • CD99 +
  • Smooth-muscle +
  • Actin +
  • MIB-1 +
  • Progesterone receptors +
Not PerformedUTROSCT---
18Jeong et al., May 2015 [29]
Case report
1, 32 year old-(I Surgery)
Operative Hysteroscopy
(II Surgery after diagnosis)
Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy
-
  • Calretinin +
  • CD99 +
  • CD56 +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-47 months-
19Kabbani et al., 2003 [30]
Case report
1, 24 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral oophoropexy, and pelvic lymph node sampling after radiotherapy and brachytherapy-
  • Calretinin +
  • Desmin +
  • CK7 +
  • SMA +
  • Cytokeratins +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-12 months-
20Kaur et al., 2020 [31]
Case series
Case 1: 49 year old
Case 2: 42 year old
Case 3: 47 year old
Case 4: 43 year old
Case 5: 46 year old
Case 6: 59 year old
Case 1–5: -
Case 6: Tamoxifen
Case 1: Radical Hysterectomy Type III and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 2–6:
Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 1, 6: -Case 1: MIC2 +, Calretinin +, CK +, EMA+, Vimentin+, SMA,+ Estrogen receptor (ER)+, Progesterone receptor (ER)+
Case 2: MIC2+, Calretinin+, CK+, Vimentin+, SMA+, Estrogen receptor (ER)+, Progesterone receptor (ER)+
Case 3: CK,+ Inhibin+, Desmin+, SMA+, Estrogen receptor (ER)+, Progesterone receptor (ER)+
Case 4: CK+, Vimentin+,
Desmin+, SMA+, Estrogen receptor (ER)+, Progesterone receptor (ER)+
Case 5: CK+, Desmin+, SMA+, Estrogen receptor (ER)+, Progesterone receptor (ER)+
Case 6: CK+, Desmin+, Estrogen receptor (ER)+
Progesterone receptor (ER)+
Not PerformedCase 1, 6: UTROSCTCase 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: -
Case 3: Carboplatin + Paclitaxel
Case 1: 24 months
Case 2: 18 months
Case 3: 7 months
Case 4: 12 months
Case 5: 1 months
Case 6: Not revealed
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: Pelvic Recurrence and LND metastasis
Case 4: -
Case 5: -
Case 6: -
21Khalifa et al., 1996 [32]
Case report
28 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy-
  • Vimentin+
  • SMA+
  • Desmin+
  • Progesterone receptor (PR)+
-UTROSCT-204 monthsRight ovary, omentum, small bowel, sigmoid colon
22Kimyon Comert et al., Apr. 2018 [33]
Case report
1, 61 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • CD56 +
  • Vimentin +
  • Calretinin +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Synaptophysin +
  • Chromogranin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-60 monthsPelvic Mass
23Kondo et al., Jul. 2017 [34]
Case report
1, 69 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • CD10 +
  • Progesterone receptor +
  • Estrogen receptor +
  • CD56 +
  • WT1 +
  • Desmin +
  • Vimentin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-36 months Lung metastasis
24Kuznicki et al., Sept. 2017 [35]
Case report
1, 49 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy +
Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy and total omentectomy
Bilateral ovarian surfaces and omentum
  • CK7 +
  • Vimentin +
  • WT1 +
  • CK20 +
Not PerformedUTROSCTPostponed due to severe complications-Hepatic and peritoneal implants and disease progression in the pelvis
25Macak et al., 2014 [36]
Case report
1, 53 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy + Pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy 1 internal iliac artery lymph node
  • Desmin +
  • Calponin +
  • WT1 +
  • Ki-67 increased
No fusion transcript detectedUTROSCT-10 months-
26Marrucci et al., Nov. 2019 [37]
Case report
1, 73 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Vimentin +
  • CD56 +
  • CD99 +
  • WT1 +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-59 monthsVaginal vault
27Richmond et al., Dec. 2016 [38]
Case report
1, 56 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy, omentectomy, and abdominopelvic washings-
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • CD10 +
  • Vimentin +
  • CD56 +
  • Calretinin +
  • Inhibin +
  • CK20 +
  • CDX2 +
  • CK7 +
No fusion transcript detectedUTROSCT-Not revealed-
28Sadeh et al., 2017 [39]
Case report
1, 57 year old Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Calretinin +
  • MART-1 +
  • Inhibin +
  • CD99 +
  • Desmin +
  • Actin +
  • Vimentin +
  • Pankeratin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-36 months-
29Sato et al., Mar. 2020 [40]
Case report
1, 57 year old-(Surgery) Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy +
(II Surgery after diagnosis)
Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy and subtotal omentectomy
-
  • Calretinin +
  • A-inhibin +
  • CD99 +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • CD10 +
  • Estrogen receptors +
  • Progesterone receptors +
Not PerformedUTROSCT with sarcomatous features-39 months-
30Schraag et al., Jan. 2017 [41]
Case series
Case 1: 24 year old
Case 2: 28 year old
Case 3: 72 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 1: Two Hysteroscopy and Abdominal Myomectomy
Case 2: (I Surgery) Abdominal Myomectomy
(II Surgery after diagnosis) Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy
Case 3: Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 1:
  • Calretinin +
  • WT1 +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • Alpha-SMA +
Case 2:
  • Calretinin +
  • WT1 +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • Alpha-SMA +
Case 3:
  • Calretinin +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • Alpha-SMA +
  • Inhibin +
Case 1, 2, 3: Not PerformedCase 1: UTROSCT
Case 2: UTROSCT
Case 3: UTROSCT
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 1: 56 months
Case 2: 20 months
Case 3: 46 months
Case 1: -
Case 2: Pelvic mass and peritoneal carcinomatosis
Case 3: -
31Segala et al., Jan. 2019 [42]
Case report
1, 63 year oldTamoxifen for bilateral breast carcinomaHysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Vimentin +
  • Smooth-muscle +
  • Actin +
  • EMA +
  • Estrogen receptors +
  • Progesterone receptors +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-56 months-
32Shibahara et al., Mar. 2022 [43]
Case report
1, 77 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • Alpha-SMA +
  • Calretinin +
  • CD99 +
  • WT-1 +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • Desmin +
  • H-caldesmon +
  • CAM5.2 +
  • Inhibin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-12 months-
33Sitic et al., Mar. 2007 [44]
Case report
1, 76 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-Vimentin+, CD10+, CD99+, α-actin+No fusion transcript detectedUTROSCT-48 months-
34Stolnicu et al., Apr. 2009 [45]
Case series
Case 1: 71 year old
Case 2: 64 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: Tamoxifen
Case 1: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 2: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
-Case 1, 2:
  • CAM 5.2 +
  • CD56 +
  • α-inhibin +
  • Calretinin +
  • CD10 +
Not PerformedCase 1, 2: UTROSCT-Case 1: 60 months
Case 2: 36 months
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
35Suzuki et al., Oct. 2001 [46]
Case report
1, 66 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy-
  • CD99 +
  • Keratin +
  • Vimentin +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-10 months-
36Tatar et al., Jan. 2016 [47]
Case report
45 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection-C-Kit+, Inhibin+Not PerformedUTROSCT-36 months-
37Uçar et al., Dec. 2016 [48]
Case report
1, 65 year old-Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy bilateral pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy-
  • Vimentin +
  • CD99 +
  • p53 +
  • CD56 +
  • CD10 +
  • SMA +
  • PanCK +
  • EMA +
  • CK7 +
  • CK19 +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-12 months-
38Umeda et al., Jan 2014 [3]
Case series
Case 1:
38 years old
Case 2: 57 year old
-Case 1: Total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy
Case 2: Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 1: left internal iliac lymph node
Case 2: -
Case 1:
  • Calretinin +
  • CD99 +
  • CD56 +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • WT1 +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • MIB-1 +
Case 2:
  • Calretinin +
  • CD99 +
  • CD56 +
  • CD10 +
  • WT1 +
  • Alpha-SMA +
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • Inhibin +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • MIB-1 +
Case 1, 2: Gene fusions of JAZF1-SUZ12 (JJAZ1)Case 1: UTROSCT
Case 2: UTROSCT
Case 1: high- dose progesterone therapy
Case 2: -
Case 1: 11 months
Case 2: 96 months
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
39Vilos et al., Apr. 2018 [49]
Case series
Case 1, 52 year old
Case 2: 47 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 1: Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 2: Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy
-Case 1:
  • Calretinin +
  • Inhibin +
  • CD99 +
  • SMA +
  • Desmin +
Case 2:
  • AE1/AE3 +
  • Vimentin +
  • CD99 +
  • Estrogen Recetor (ER) +
  • p16 +
  • SMA +
  • Desmin +
  • Calretinin +
Not PerformedCase 1, 2: UTROSCTCase 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 1: 36 months
Case 1: 12 months
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
40Wang et al., 2022 [6]
Case report
1, 42 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy-
  • Desmin +
  • Smooth-muscle +
  • Actin +
  • WT-1 +
  • D2-40 +
  • CD 99 +
  • Ki-67 increased
No translocation of the JAZF1 gene was detectedUTROSCT-2 months-
41Wang et al., Mar. 2003 [50]
Case report
1, 34 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy-
  • AE1/AE3/PCK2 +
  • β-catenin +
  • Vimentin +
  • Desmin +
  • SMA +
  • CD99 +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • Estrogen receptor (ER) +
Translocations of t(X;6)(p22.3;q23.1) and t(4;18)(q21.1;q21.3)UTROSCT-12 months-
42Yin et al., 2022 [51]
Case report
1, 51 year old-Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and regional lymph node dissection-
  • AE1/AE3+
  • Cam5.2+
  • Progesterone receptor (PR)+
  • Estrogen receptor (ER)+
  • WT1+
  • CD56+
  • Desmin+
  • TL1+
  • Calretinin+
  • CD99+
  • Synaptophysin+
GREB1–NCOA1 fusion detectedUTROSCT-12 months-
43Zalewska et al., 2014 [52]
Case series
Case 1: 50 year old
Case 2: 25 year old
Case 3: 51 year old
Case 4: 63 year old
Case 5: 24 year old
Case 6: 64 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 4: -
Case 5: -
Case 6: -
Case 1: Subtotal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 2: Operative Hysteroscopy
Case 3: Subtotal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 4: Subtotal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 5: Operative Hysteroscopy
Case 6: Subtotal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 3: -
Case 4: -
Case 5: -
Case 6: -
Case 1: CD10+, SMA+, Calretinin+, Progesterone Receptor (PR)+, MIB-1+
Case 2: CD10+, SMA+, DES+, Calretinin+, Inhibin+, CKAE1/3+, Progesterone Receptor (PR)+, MIB-1+
Case 3: CD10+, Calretinin,+ Progesterone Receptor (PR)+
Case 4: CD10+, SMA+, DES+, CKAE1/3+, Calretinin+, Inhibin+, CKAE1/3+, Progesterone Receptor (PR)+, MIB-1+
Case 5: CD10+, SMA+, CKAE1/3+, Calretinin+, Inhibin+, Progesterone Receptor (PR)+, MIB-1+
Case 6: CD10+, CKAE1/3+, Calretinin+, Inhibin+, Progesterone Receptor (PR)+, MIB-1+
Not PerformedCase 1, 6: UTROSCTCase 2, 3, 4, 5: gestagensCase 1: 174 months
Case 2: 84 months
Case 3: 66 months
Case 4: 60 months
Case 5: 54 months
Case 6: 36 months
Case 1, 6: -
44Zhang et al. Dec. 2018 [53]
Case series
Case 1: 64 year old
Case 2: 33 year old
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 1: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
Case 2: Hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and bilateral ovarian biopsy
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 1:
  • Vimentin +
  • Calretinin +
  • WT-1 +
  • Cytokeratin (CK) +
  • Progesterone receptor (PR) +
  • Ki-67 increased
  • Inhibin +
  • CD10 +
  • CA125 +
  • p16 +
Case 2:
  • CD99 +
  • SMA +
  • Calretinin +
  • Vimentin +
  • Desmin +
Case 1, 2: Not PerformedCase 1, 2: UTROSCTCase 1: -
Case 2: -
Case 1: 12 months
Case 2: 144 months
Case 1: -
Case 2: -
45Zhou, et al., Aug. 2021 [54]
Case report
1, 51 year old-Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy-
  • Ki-67 increased
  • Vimentin +
  • CD99 +
  • CK +
Not PerformedUTROSCT-58 months-
Total cases:
66
Median age:
49.7
(24–77 year old)
Tamonxifen: 3
APC Gene: 1
H + BSO: 37
H + BS: 10
H + BSO + LND: 12
Hysteroscopy: 5
Myomectomy: 2
Metastasis:
- 2 lymph node
- 2 ovarian node
- 1 cervix
UTROSCT: 66F-U: 63
RT: 1
CHT: 3
Hormonal Therapy: 2
Not revealed: 1
Median Time: 49.7 months/59 cases
Not Revealed: 7
Recurrence: 22% (13/59 cases)
Table 2. Site recurrence of UTROSCT.
Table 2. Site recurrence of UTROSCT.
Local RecurrenceSiteNumber of Recurrences
Ovaries1
Pelvic mass8
Vaginal vault1
Carcinomatosis2
Distant recurrence
Lymph Node1
Liver1
Bowel2
Omentum3
Lung1
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227131

AMA Style

Ferrara M, Pecorino B, D’Agate MG, Angelico G, Capoluongo ED, Malapelle U, Pepe F, Scollo P, Mereu L. Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(22):7131. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227131

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferrara, Martina, Basilio Pecorino, Maria Gabriella D’Agate, Giuseppe Angelico, Ettore Domenico Capoluongo, Umberto Malapelle, Francesco Pepe, Paolo Scollo, and Liliana Mereu. 2023. "Uterine Tumours Resembling Ovarian Sex-Cord Tumors: A Case Report and Review of the Literature" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 22: 7131. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227131

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop