ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2018
Criteria for Risk Stratification of Vulvar and Vaginal Smooth Muscle Tumors: An Evaluation of 71 Cases Comparing Proposed Classification Systems.
Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vulvar Leiomyosarcomas: A Case Series with Clinical Comparison to Uterine Leiomyosarcomas and Review of the Literature.The American journal of case reports · 2023Review
- Vulvar Leiomyosarcoma in Pregnancy.Cureus · 2021Article
- EWSR1-WT1 gene fusions in neoplasms other than desmoplastic small round cell tumor: a report of three unusual tumors involving the female genital tract and review of the literature.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021Review
- Primary vulvar leiomyosarcoma localized in the Bartholin's gland area: A case report and review.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- PDGFB Rearrangements in Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans of the Vulva: A Study of 11 Cases Including Myxoid and Fibrosarcomatous Variants.International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate risk stratification of smooth muscle tumors (SMTs) is essential for appropriate patient management. Yet, the rarity of SMTs of the vagina and vulva makes development of a prognostically meaningful classification system challenging. While 2 classification methods for vulvar SMTs and 1 for vaginal SMTs have been proposed, it is our experience that many pathologists tend to apply criteria for uterine SMTs when evaluating vulvovaginal tumors. We retrospectively reviewed a large cohort of vulvovaginal SMTs with clinical follow-up and evaluated which method most accurately classified tumors according to patient outcome. A total of 71 tumors, 53 vaginal (75%) and 18 vulvar (25%), from 71 patients were identified. All tumors were centrally examined for degree of cytologic atypia, morphology (spindled, epithelioid, myxoid), mitotic index per 10 high power fields, atypical mitotic figures, tumor cell necrosis, ischemic necrosis, tumor interface (circumscribed or infiltrative) and margin status. Clinical features were recorded for each patient. Follow-up was available for 63 patients (89%), and ranged from 1 to 234 months (median: 64 mo). While site-specific and uterine criteria showed equally excellent sensitivity in classifying smooth muscle neoplasms as leiomyosarcoma according to patient outcome, uterine criteria showed improved specificity relatively to site-specific methods in classifying tumors as nonsarcoma according to patient outcome. We recommend that uterine SMT criteria and nomenclature be adopted for evaluation and classification of vulvovaginal SMTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.