ArticleBMC women's health2025
Endometrial polyps with bizarre stromal cells: a Benign or a low-grade lesion?
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. 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
backgroundPolyps containing bizarre stromal cells are occasionally observed in the lower gynecologic tract, including the vagina, cervix, and endometrium, predominantly in perimenopausal or postmenopausal patients. These cases have traditionally been considered benign without subsequent recurrence or malignancy. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a rare instance of a rapid enlarging endometrial polyp characterized by atypical stromal cells in a 76-year-old postmenopausal woman, who presented with vaginal bleeding. Histologically, the polyp was noted for its abundance of atypical stromal cells interspersed among thick-walled vascular channels. Higher magnification revealed eosinophilic cytoplasm in the stromal cells, which exhibited both mono- and multinucleation, hyperchromasia with coarse chromatin, and an absence of conspicuous nucleoli and mitotic figures. A consensus among two of three consulting expert gynecological pathologists supported a benign endometrial polyp diagnosis; however, one pathologist raised the possibility of adenosarcoma, highlighting the diagnostic dilemma these unique lesions present. Despite a hysterectomy recommendation, the patient chose monitoring over immediate surgery. Persistent vaginal bleeding led to her return six months later, whereupon a 7-cm polypoid lesion in the endometrial cavity was found and removed via hysterectomy. The histopathology mirrored the initial findings, showing no myometrial invasion, prompting a re-evaluation of the presumed benign nature of the polyp given its rapid growth. Remarkably, RNA sequencing analysis of the polyp detected a JAK2::NFIB gene fusion, a novel finding for endometrial polyps with atypical stromal cells, the clinical implications of which remain to be elucidated.
conclusionThe rapid recurrence of the polyp within six months raises new questions about the true biological nature of these entities and the relevance of gene fusions like JAK2::NFIB in their pathogenesis, meriting further investigation.
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.