ArticleTranslational cancer research2024
A rare case report of endometrial adenosarcoma in the cesarean scar diverticulum.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Uterine cystic adenomyoma arising from cesarean scar diverticulum: a case report and literature review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endometrial adenosarcoma is an unusual type of uterine tumor that features a seemingly benign epithelial component, paired with a low-grade sarcomatous component, usually similar in appearance to endometrial stromal sarcoma. To our knowledge, no image of endometrial adenocarcinoma in the cesarean scar diverticulum has been reported previously. Case Description: We present a rare case of endometrial adenocarcinoma located in the cesarean scar diverticulum of a 44-year-old patient. The patient was admitted to our hospital complaining of irregular vaginal bleeding that had lasted for over two months. Both B-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a mass at the junction of the corpus uteri and cervix. After the initial curettage failed to confirm the disease, a hysteroscopy was subsequently performed. Upon further pathological analysis, a diagnosis of endometrial adenosarcoma was confirmed. The patient underwent hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy. The patient was discharged home four days after the surgery and remained recurrence-free for one year after follow-up. Conclusions: Hysteroscopy can serve as a valuable diagnostic tool to identify the lesion in this unique scenario, particularly when curettage fails to diagnose this uncommon condition. We hope that this case would bring awareness of this potential scenario, enabling clinicians in the future to identify similar cases more readily.
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.