Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinicopathological Correlation of Uterine Corpus Tumors: A Study of 433 Cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Uterine corpus tumors are one of the most common reasons for morbidity and mortality of women around the world, and histopathological diagnosis is the key for better management of the patients.

Aims

To study the histopathology of uterine tumors, classify them as per WHO 2014 classification and correlate with clinical parameters.

Methods

A five-year study was conducted on 433 histopathologically diagnosed cases of uterine corpus tumors.

Results

Benign tumors were the most common (95.6%) followed by malignant (3.9%) and borderline (0.5%). Leiomyoma was the most common benign tumor (91.2%). Majority of the cases were multiparous females (88.6%) in fourth and fifth decades of life (77%) and presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding (35.9%). The most location was intramural (68.9%). Cellular leiomyoma (1.8%) was the most common histologic variant; the secondary change was hyalinization (27.8%). Endometrial carcinoma was the most common malignant tumor (3%) followed by leiomyosarcoma (0.5%) and adenosarcoma (0.2%). Majority of the women with endometrial carcinoma were multiparous (76.9%) and belonging to the age-group of 50–59 years (38.4%). The most common symptom was postmenopausal bleeding (76.9%). Endometrioid carcinoma grade I (75%) was the most common type of endometrial carcinoma. Other lesions were adenomyoma (N = 17), STUMP (N = 2), and one case each of adenomatoid tumor, endometrial stromal nodule and secondary tumor.

Conclusion

Benign tumors were more common than malignant tumors. Leiomyoma was the most common benign tumor, and endometrial carcinoma was the most common malignant tumor. Many uterine tumors present with similar clinical features. However, histopathology plays an important role in the accurate diagnosis of different types of tumors and thus helps in providing the patient with appropriate management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 10 Nov 2015.

  2. Dadhania Bhoomika, Dhruva Gauravi, Agravat Amit, Pujara Krupal. Histopathological study of endometrium in dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Int J Res Med. 2013;2(1):20–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. Tumors of the uterine corpus, Chap 5. In: Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH, editors. WHO classification of tumors of female reproductive organs. Lyon: IARC; 2014. p. 121–54.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kurman RJ, Ellenson LH, Ronnett BM. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Sutton C. The historical curiosities in the surgical management of myomas. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004;11(1):4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ranabat SK, Shrestha R, Tiwari M, Sinha DP, Subedee LR. A retrospective histopathological study of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-ophorectomy specimens. JCMC. 2010;1(1):26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nayak JC, Prajapati VP, Desai KS, Jadav HR, Chaudhary SM, Pensi CA. Uterine leiomyoma: clinical profile at civil hospital, Ahmedabad. NJIRM. 2012;3(4):50–3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Abdullah L, Gomaa W. The clinicopathological characteristics of uterine leiomyomas: a tertiary care centre ecperience in Saudi Arabia. Rep Opin. 2013;5(10):21–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gowri M, Mala G, Murthy S, Nayak V. Clinicopathological study of uterine leiomyomas in hysterectomy specimens. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2013;2(46):9002–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Begum S, Khan S. Audit of leiomyoma uterus at Khyber teaching hospital Peshawar. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2004;16(2):46–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abraham J, Saldanha P. Morphological variants and secondary changes in uterine leiomyomas: Is it important to recognize them? IJBR. 2013;4(12):639–45.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mohammed A, Shehu SM, Ahmed SA, Mayun AA, Tiffin IU, Alkali G, et al. Uterine leiomyomata: a five year clinicopathological review in Zaria, Nigeria. Niger J Surg Res. 2005;7(1):206–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibrar F, Riaz S, Dawood NS, Jabeen A. Frequency of fibroid uterus in multipara women in a tertiary care centre in Rawalpindi. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2010;22(3):155–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dayal S, Kumar A, Verma A. Clinicopathologic correlation of leiomyoma with clinical findings and secondary changes in a rural population of north India. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;141:275–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Manjula K, Kadam SR, Chandrasekar HR. Variants of leiomyoma: histomorphological study of tumors of myometrium. JSAFOG. 2011;3(2):89–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramachandran T, Sinha P, Subramanium. Correlation between clinico-pathological and ultrasonographical findings in hysterectomy. JCDR. 2011;5(4):737–40.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jha R, Pant AD, Jha A, Adhikari RC, Sayami G. Histopathological analysis of hysterectomy specimens. J Nepal Med Assoc. 2006;45(163):283–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rather GR, Gupta Y, Bardhwaj S. Patterns of lesions in hysterectomy specimens: a prospective study. JK Sci. 2013;15(2):63–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kapp DS, Shin JY, Chan JK. Prognostic factors and survival in 1396 patients with uterine leiomyosarcomas: emphasis on impact of lymphadenectomy and oophorectomy. Cancer. 2008;112(4):820–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim WY, Chang SJ, Chang KH, Yoon JH, Kim JH, Kim BG, et al. Uterine leiomyosarcoma: 14-year two-center experience of 31 cases. Cancer Res Treat. 2009;41(1):24–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loizzi V, Cormio G, Nestola D, Falagario M, Surgo A, Camporeale A, et al. Prognostic factors and outcomes in 28 cases of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Oncology. 2011;81(2):91–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Larson B, Silfverswarb C, Nilsson B, Pettersson F. Prognostic factors in uterine leiomyosarcoma: a clinical and histopathological study of 143 cases the Radiumhemmet series 1936-1981. Acta Oncol. 1990;29(2):185–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosai J. Female reproductive system-uterus corpus, Chap 19. In: Rosai and Ackerman’s surgical pathology, 10th ed. Gurgaon: Elsevier; 2011. pp. 1477–1540.

  24. Rathod PS, Reddihalli PV, Krishnappa S, Devi UK, Bafna UD. A retrospective clinicopathological study of 131 cases with endometrial cancers: Is it possible to define the role of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in low-resource settings? Indian J Cancer. 2014;51(1):54–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Abd El-Wahed MM, Abdou AG, Al-Sharaky DR, Kasem HA. Clinicopathological differences between type I and type II endometrial carcinoma. Menoufia Med J. 2017;30:946–51.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ellenson LH, Pirog EC. The female genital tract. In: Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Aster J, editors. Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc.; 2010. p. 1005–64.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Sherman ME. Theories of endometrial carcinogenesis: a multidisciplinary approach. Mod Pathol. 2000;13(3):295–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tahlan A, Nanda A, Mohan H. Uterine adenomyoma: a clinicopathologic review of 26 cases and a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2006;25:361–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gilks CB, Clement PB, Hart WR, Young RH. Uterine adenomyomas excluding atypical polypoid adenomyomas and adenomyomas of endocervical type: a clinicopathologic study of 30 cases of an underemphasized lesion that may cause diagnostic problems with brief consideration of adenomyomas of other female genital tract sites. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;19(3):195–205.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rekhi B, Deodhar KK, Maheshwari A, Menon S, Kerkar R, Bajpai J, et al. Clinicopathological spectrum of 19 adenosarcomas of female genital tract, including uncommon clinical associations and immunohistochemical profile, reviewed at a single institution. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2012;55(3):326–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sangoi AR, McKenney JK, Schwartz EJ, Rouse RV, Longacre TA. Adenomatoid tumors of the female and male genital tracts: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of 44 cases. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(9):1228–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ranjan R, Singh L, Nath D, Sable MN, Malhotra N, Bhatla N, et al. Uterine adenomatoid tumors: a study of five cases including three cases of the rare leiomyoadenomatoid variant. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015;65(4):255–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Üzüm N, Ortaç F, Ataoğlu O. Intramurally located adenomatoid tumor of the uterus: a case report. Gazi Med J. 2009;20(3):139–41.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kundu R, Mohan H, Sehgal A, Takkar N. Adenomatoid tumor of the uterus; report of a rare incidentaloma. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(3):769–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Agashe SR, Kulkarni MP, Momin YA, Sulhyan KR. Superficial extension of squamous cell carcinoma in situ of cervix involving endometrium, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: a case report. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2007;50:375–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marwah N, Garg M, Singh S, Sethi D, Sen R. Unusual form of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix extending in situ into the endometrium: three case reports and review of literature. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2012;2:139–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Government Medical College Miraj, District Sangli, Maharashtra, 416410, India

    Divya Shekhar Shetty, Alka Vikas Gosavi, Prashant Shankarrao Murarkar & Kalpana Ranjitsingh Sulhyan

  2. Mumbai, India

    Divya Shekhar Shetty

Authors
  1. Divya Shekhar Shetty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alka Vikas Gosavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prashant Shankarrao Murarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kalpana Ranjitsingh Sulhyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Divya Shekhar Shetty.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shetty, D.S., Gosavi, A.V., Murarkar, P.S. et al. Clinicopathological Correlation of Uterine Corpus Tumors: A Study of 433 Cases. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 17, 71 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0315-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0315-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation