Preoperative discrimination between uterine myomas and sarcomas
Authors:
Filip Frühauf 1
; Andrea Burgetová 2
; Lukáš Lambert 2
; Kristýna Němejcová 3
; Michal Mára 1
; Daniela Fischerová 1
Authors place of work:
Klinika gynekologie, porodnictví a neonatologie 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
1; Radiodia gnostická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
2; Ústav patologie, 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
3
Published in the journal:
Ceska Gynekol 2024; 89(4): 319-328
Category:
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg2024319
Summary
The narrative review article is focused on the strengths and limitations of modern imaging methods in the preoperative differential diagnosis of uterine mesenchymal tumours. In order to tailor the surgical procedures, imaging methods, namely ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), should be taken into account as well as clinical symptoms, age, and fertility plans. On ultrasound scans, uterine sarcomas have the appearance of large, usually solitary tumours of non-homogenous structure with irregular cysts, ill-defined outline borders (interrupted capsule), absence of calcifications with acoustic shadowing, and moderate to rich internal vascularisation. Rapid growth between follow-ups or atypical growth in peri- or post-menopause is also a sign of malignancy. On MRI, uterine sarcomas are characterized by irregular borders, hyperintense areas on T1-weighted and T2- weighted images, and central non-enhancing necrotic areas. On diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI/MRI), sarcomas exhibit markedly restricted diffusion but there is a significant overlap with some variants of fibroids. Core-needle or hysteroscopic biopsy can be used preoperatively if suspicious features are detected on ultrasound or MRI scans, particularly before myomectomy if fertility preservation is required or when conservative management is considered in asymptomatic women. Other imaging methods, such as positron emission tomography fused with CT (PET-CT) or computed tomography (CT) have limited role to distinguish uterine sarcomas from myomas and are suitable only for staging purposes. The importance of tumour markers including lactate dehydrogenase in preoperative work-up have not been verified yet. Conclusion: Uterine sarcomas can be distinguished from much more common myomas based on a combination of malignant features on ultrasound or MR imaging. In these suspicious cases the type and extent of surgery should be adjusted, avoiding intraperitoneal morcellation, which could lead to iatrogenic tumour spread and worsening of the patient’s prognosis.
Keywords:
Biopsy – ultrasound – biomarkers – magnetic resonance imaging – myoma – uterine sarcoma
Zdroje
1. Donnez J, Dolmans MM. Uterine fibroid management: from the present to the future. Hum Reprod Update 2016; 22 (6): 665–686. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw023.
2. Multinu F, Casarin J, Tortorella L et al. Incidence of sarcoma in patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (2): 179.e1–179.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11. 1086.
3. Lokuhetty D, White VA, Watanabe R. Mesenchymal tumours. In: WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC Press 2020.
4. Ludovisi M, Moro F, Pasciuto T et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (15): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of uterine sarcoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54 (5): 676–687. doi: 10.1002/uog.20270.
5. Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46 (3): 284–298. doi: 10.1002/uog.14806.
6. Fascilla FD, Cramarossa P, Cannone R et al. Ultrasound diagnosis of uterine myomas. Minerva Ginecol 2016; 68 (3): 297–312.
7. Prat J. FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 104 (3): 177–178. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.12.008.
8. Exacoustos C, Romanini ME, Amadio A et al. Can gray-scale and color Doppler sonography differentiate between uterine leiomyosarcoma and leiomyoma? J Clin Ultrasound 2007; 35 (8): 449–457. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20386.
9. Amant F, Van den Bosch T, Vergote I et al. Morcellation of uterine leiomyomas: a plea for patient triage. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16 (15): 1454–1456. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045 (15) 00 375-7.
10. Knipprath-Meszaros AM, Tozzi A, Butenschon A et al. High negative prediction for the Basel sarcoma score: sonographic assessment of features suspicious of uterine sarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 174: 182–189. doi: 10.1016/ j.ygyno.2023.05.005.
11. Kubik-Huch RA, Weston M, Nougaret S et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of leiomyomas. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (8): 3125–3137. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5157-5.
12. Bura V, Pintican RM, David RE et al. MRI findings in-between leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma: a Rad-Path correlation of degenerated leiomyomas and variants. Br J Radiol 2021; 94 (1125): 20210283. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210283.
13. Sun S, Bonaffini PA, Nougaret S et al. How to differentiate uterine leiomyosarcoma from leiomyoma with imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging 2019; 100 (10): 619–634. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2019.07.007.
14. Lakhman Y, Veeraraghavan H, Chaim J et al. Differentiation of uterine leiomyosarcoma from atypical leiomyoma: diagnostic accuracy of qualitative MR imaging features and feasibility of texture analysis. Eur Radiol 2017; 27 (7): 2903–2915. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4623-9.
15. Lin G, Yang LY, Huang YT et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI in the differentiation between uterine leiomyosarcoma / smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential and benign leiomyoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 43 (2): 333–342. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24998.
16. Pérez-Fidalgo JA, Ortega E, Ponce J et al. Uterine sarcomas: clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, by Spanish group for research on sarcomas (GEIS). Ther Adv Med Oncol 2023; 28: 15: 17588359231157645. doi: 10.1177/17588359231157645.
17. Stukan M, Rutkowski P, Smadja J et al. Ultrasound-guided trans-uterine cavity core needle biopsy of uterine myometrial tumors to differentiate sarcoma from a benign lesion-description of the method and review of the literature. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12 (6): 1348. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12061348.
18. Kawamura N, Ichimura T, Ito F et al. Transcervical needle biopsy for the differential diag- nosis between uterine sarcoma and leiomyoma. Cancer 2002; 94 (6): 1713–1720. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10382.
19. Wilkinson MJ, Martin JL, Khan AA et al. Percutaneous core needle biopsy in retroperitoneal sarcomas does not influence local recurrence or overall survival. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22 (3): 853–858. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4059-x.
20. Tamura R, Kashima K, Asatani M et al. Preoperative ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of 63 uterine tumors having high signal intensity upon T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014; 24 (6): 1042–1047. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000189.
21. Halaska MJ, Haidopoulos D, Guyon F et al. European Society of Gynecological Oncology Statement on fibroid and uterine morcellation. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27 (1): 189–192. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000911.
22. Hinchcliff EM, Esselen KM, Watkins JC et al. The role of endometrial biopsy in the preoperative detection of uterine leiomyosarcoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (4): 567–572. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.022.
23. Glorie N, Baert T, Van den Bosh T et al. Circulating protein biomarkers to differentiate uterine sarcomas from leiomyomas. Anticancer Res 2019; 39 (8): 3981–3989. doi: 10.21873/ anticanres.13553.
24. Nishigaya Y, Kobayashi Y, Matsuzawa Y et al. Diagnostic value of combination serum assay of lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein for uterine leiomyosarcoma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45 (1): 189–194. doi: 10.1111/jog.13792.
25. Nagai T, Takai Y, Akahori T et al. Highly improved accuracy of the revised PREoperative sarcoma score (rPRESS) in the decision of performing surgery for patients presenting with a uterine mass. Springerplus 2015; 4: 520. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1318-7.
26. Raspagliesi F, Maltese G, Bogani G et al. Morcellation worsens survival outcomes in patients with undiagnosed uterine leiomyosarcomas: a retrospective MITO group study. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144 (1): 90–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.002.
27. Roberts ME, Aynardi JT, Chu CS. Uterine leiomyosarcoma: a review of the literature and update on management options. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 151 (3): 562–572. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.010.
28. US Food and Drug Administration Updated laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication. 2014 [online]. Available from: https: //www.wilsonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/UPDATED-Safety-Communication_Laparoscopic-Power-Morcellation. pdf.
29. US Food and Drug Administration The FDA recommends performing contained morcellation in women when laparoscopic power morcellation is appropriate: FDA safety communication. 2020 [online]. Available from: https: //www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-perform-only-contained-morcellation-when-laparoscopic-power-morcellation-appropriate-fda.
Štítky
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Gynaecology
2024 Číslo 4
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Movements of the pelvic bones of expectant mothers during vaginal delivery
- Preoperative discrimination between uterine myomas and sarcomas
- Incidence of stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
- DNA hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes TWIST1, GATA4, MUS81 and NTRK1 in endometrial hyperplasia