ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2025
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour of cervix: Uncommon pathology in an unlikely location - A literature review.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours (IMTs) of the uterine cervix are extremely rare, benign mesenchymal neoplasms, characterized by the proliferation of myofibroblasts within an inflammatory background. IMTs most commonly occur in the lungs and abdomen, and their occurrence in the female genital tract, particularly the uterine cervix, is exceedingly rare. The optimal management of these tumours remains under investigation due to the limited number of reported cases. Objectives: This literature review aims to provide an overview of the clinical presentation, diagnostic challenges and management strategies of uterine cervical IMTs. This review focuses on the roles of histopathology, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular analysis in diagnosing these tumours, and discusses treatment outcomes and follow-up strategies. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar and other relevant databases. Relevant case reports and studies published between 2000 and 2024 were included. The primary outcomes assessed were clinical presentation, diagnostic features, treatment modalities and recurrence/metastasis rates. Results: Eleven reports of IMTs of the uterine cervix were identified in the literature search, and six of these were included in this review. Clinical presentation primarily includes abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), often with symptoms of menorrhagia and dysmenorrhoea. Imaging studies and histopathological examination play key roles in diagnosis, with IHC markers such as smooth muscle actin, desmin and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-1 being used frequently. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, with some cases also benefiting from targeted therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Conclusion: IMTs of the uterine cervix are rare but are increasingly recognized in clinical practice. They are typically benign with a low risk of malignancy, although local recurrence is possible, especially in cases of incomplete resection. Diagnosis relies heavily on histopathological and molecular analysis, with ALK gene rearrangements being an important molecular finding. While surgical excision remains the primary treatment, ongoing research into targeted therapies, including ALK inhibitors, offers promising avenues for management. This review emphasizes the need for long-term follow-up given the potential for recurrence.
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.