ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the uterus and pelvic cavity.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Malignant uterine PEComa: a narrative literature review and challenging case report.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Review
- Editorial on the Special Issue Titled "Pathology and Diagnosis of Gynecologic Diseases-2nd Edition".Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas) of the female reproductive tract have been primarily reported as case reports owing to their clinical rarity. Limited incidence rates and clinical case data hinder a comprehensive understanding of the risks and invasiveness of this disease. We discuss herein the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of this disease to enhance comprehension and therapeutic strategies. Methods: We conducted a clinical analysis of patients with PEComa treated at the Gynecology Department of The West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University between May 2018 and January 2024. Diagnosis and treatment were evaluated based on pertinent literature. Results: Overall, eight patients (seven patients with tumors in the uterus and one patient with tumors in the pelvic cavity) were evaluated. One patient with PEComa of unknown malignant potential and two patients with malignant PEComa underwent hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy with or without adjuvant therapy and did not develop recurrence. Meanwhile, three patients who underwent lesion resection only exhibited radiological evidence of new lesions. Furthermore, postoperative imaging identified new pulmonary nodules in three patients. Conclusion: Although the current criteria are generally effective in assessing the tumor invasiveness of PEComa, emphasizing the significance of complete lesion resection remains crucial. Inadequate treatment significantly increases the risks of recurrence and metastasis. Additionally, the prevalence of pulmonary metastases may have been underestimated. Refining risk stratification to prevent overtreatment of low-grade malignancies or overlooking highly aggressive tumors is an important area for further study.
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.