Uterine adenomatoid tumors confirmed by immunohistochemical staining

Our plain-English summary of Uterine adenomatoid tumors confirmed by immunohistochemical staining, by M. Irikoma, K. Takahashi, H. Kurioka, et al (Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2001).

The study

• Authors: M. Irikoma, K. Takahashi, H. Kurioka, K. Miyazaki, T. Kamei
• Journal: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
• Published: 2001;265(3):151-4
• Type of article: Case report
• Cited by: 11 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

We present a 39-year-old nulliparous woman who consulted our clinic for an 8-year history of infertility with no notable symptoms. There apparent uterine leiomyomas were found incidentally on clinical examination and imaging. The surgically enucleated specimens were white in color with variable consistency poorly defined margins. The tissues stained positive for cytokeratin but were negative for CD34 antibodies, indicating a mesothelial origin. Staining for vimentin and HBME1 was also strongly positive, supporting a mesothelial origin of the tumors. The patient became pregnant 6 months after surgery. A healthy male infant was delivered at term. Immunohistochemical staining establish the diagnosis of benign adenomatoid tumors derived from mesothelial tissue.

In plain English

This case report from Japan described a 39-year-old woman who had never given birth and came to the authors' clinic in December 1995 after 8 years of infertility. A pelvic examination suggested one small leiomyoma (fibroid). Ultrasound then showed three areas in the uterus, and MRI showed changes at the same sites. All three were diagnosed before surgery as leiomyomas. In May 1996 surgeons removed all three growths, which measured 3×2.8×2.5 cm, 2.7×2.2×2 cm and 1.3×0.7×0.6 cm. Under the microscope they proved to be adenomatoid tumors. Staining tests showed that the cells lining the spaces inside the tumors were positive for cytokeratins, vimentin and HBME1 and negative for CD34, EMA, CEA, TM and CA125. The authors concluded that these findings confirmed the tumors were adenomatoid tumors of mesothelial origin and that they were benign. They added that, from their limited experience, these tumors could not be told apart from leiomyomas by appearance, MRI or ultrasound. The patient became pregnant 6 months after surgery and delivered a healthy male infant at term. The article does not mention asbestos, and it describes benign tumors, not mesothelioma.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: case report (single patient)
• Who was studied: One 39-year-old nulliparous woman with 8 years of primary infertility, seen at the authors' clinic (Shimane Medical University, Japan) on December 11, 1995, with surgery on May 2, 1996
• Exposure: Not reported. The article does not mention asbestos or any other exposure.
• Main results:
  • Bimanual (pelvic) examination suggested a small leiomyoma in the fundus of the uterus.
  • Transvaginal ultrasound showed three low echoic regions in the uterine corpus. MRI showed low-intensity areas at the corresponding sites.
  • Before surgery, the tumors were diagnosed as leiomyomas.
  • All three tumors were removed. They measured 3×2.8×2.5 cm, 2.7×2.2×2 cm and 1.3×0.7×0.6 cm.
  • Standard microscopic examination of stained sections showed typical adenomatoid tumors.
  • The cells lining the spaces inside the tumors stained strongly for cytokeratins but not for CD34.
  • The same cells were positive for vimentin and HBME1 and negative for EMA, CEA, TM and CA125.
  • The patient became pregnant 6 months after surgery and delivered a healthy male infant at term.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the microscopic and staining findings confirmed adenomatoid tumors of mesothelial origin that were benign.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors described their experience as limited. In this case the tumors could not be distinguished from leiomyoma by their appearance, by MRI or by ultrasound.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Adenomatoid Tumor, Immunohistochemistry, CD34.

Related studies

• TRAF7 mutations and immunohistochemical study of uterine adenomatoid tumor compared with malignant mesothelioma — H. Itami, T. Fujii, et al. (2021)
• Immunohistochemical evidence of the mesothelial histogenesis of a uterine adenomatoid tumor — Y. Satoh, M. Hiraguchi, et al. (1998)
• Synchronous occurrence of benign mesothelioma and adenomatoid tumor of uterus: A case report and review of literature — P.R. Shen, J. Cen, et al. (2019)
• Composite multicystic mesothelioma and adenomatoid tumour of the uterus: different morphological manifestations of the same process? — J.K. Chan, M.H. Fong (1996)
• Epithelioid endometrial and endometrioid stromal tumors: a report of four cases emphasizing their distinction from epithelioid smooth muscle tumors and other oxyphilic uterine and extrauterine tumors — E. Oliva, P.B. Clement, et al. (2002)
• Microcystic variant of localized malignant mesothelioma accompanying an adenomatoid tumor-like lesion — H. Umezu, K. Kuwata, et al. (2002)

Browse more research in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, or return to medical research.