ArticleCureus2026
Myoepithelioma-Like Tumor of the Vulvar Region Presenting as a Painful Vulvar Nodule in a Young Woman: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myoepithelioma-like tumor of the vulvar region (MELTVR) is a rare mesenchymal subcutaneous tumor of low malignant potential that occurs in adult women and has typical histological features, including loss of SMARCB1 (INI1) expression. This report describes the case of a 23-year-old woman with a painful vulvar subcutaneous nodule and a diagnosis of MELTVR and describes the challenges in the approach to definitive diagnosis. A 23-year-old woman presented with a three-month history of right pubic pain. Imaging revealed a 25-mm inguinal lesion without metastasis. Biopsy demonstrated spindle and plasmacytoid tumor cells in myxoid and hypercellular areas, suggesting myoepithelioma. Although necrosis and mitotic activity were not evaluable in the biopsy specimen, malignant potential could not be excluded. Complete surgical excision was subsequently performed. The resected tumor measured 45 × 35 × 15 mm and showed multilocular solid and gelatinous areas. Histologically, lobulated growth, marked atypia, necrosis, and mitotic activity (9/10 HPF) were identified. Immunohistochemically, tumor cells showed positivity for estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR), along with loss of SMARCB1 (INI1) expression. Other markers, such as neural and myoepithelial markers, were negative. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis showed no Ewing sarcoma breakpoint region 1 (EWSR1) rearrangement. MELTVR was diagnosed based on integrated clinicopathological and molecular findings. Biopsy specimens may fail to capture key diagnostic features of MELTVR because of intratumoral heterogeneity. Definitive diagnosis requires comprehensive evaluation of resection specimens with immunohistochemical and molecular analyses. This case may contribute to establishing diagnostic criteria for this rare entity.
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.