ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Unusual spread of cervical adenocarcinoma to the endometrium and left fallopian tube: a case report and literature review.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The incidence of cervical adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in situ are gradually increasing especially in younger women. However, unusual spread of cervical adenocarcinoma has rarely been reported. Case presentation: The authors report a case of a 60-year-old woman who presented with postmenopausal bleeding. She was misdiagnosed to have endometrial adenocarcinoma on the lower uterine segment depending on curettage specimen. After hysterectomy, it was revealed depending on morphological features in histology accompanied with immunohistochemistry that the patient had cervical adenocarcinoma with endometrial and left fallopian tube extension. Discussion: Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma from endometroid adenocarcinoma poses many challenges especially when evaluating endometrial curettage specimens. Histological diagnosis based on morphological features combined with a panel of immunohistochemistry stains is crucial for accurate diagnosis and identifying the primary origin of the tumor. Conclusion: Accurate distinction between cervical adenocarcinoma versus endometrial adenocarcinoma is important because of its significant effects on choosing the appropriate treatment option.
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.