Challenges in Diagnosing Metastatic Uterine PEComa: Insights from Two Case Studies

Cédric Kabeya; Mathilde Lancelle; Gregory Demolin; Céline Wattier; Camille Marchisello; Antonino Buonomo; Sandhya Fonseca

doi:10.12659/AJCR.944365

23 August 2024 : Case report Belgium

Challenges in Diagnosing Metastatic Uterine PEComa: Insights from Two Case Studies

Challenging differential diagnosis, Unusual or unexpected effect of treatment, Rare disease

Cédric Kabeya^1ABDEF*, Mathilde Lancelle^1E, Gregory Demolin^2DE, Céline Wattier^1E, Camille Marchisello^2E, Antonino Buonomo^1ABDEF, Sandhya Fonseca^3ABDE

DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.944365

Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944365

Authors information Article notes Copyright and License information

Introduction Case Reports Discussion Conclusions References:

Related articles Order reprints Share article Share by email

View HTML version

Table 2. Common classifications for PEComas [7,8,14].

	Folpe et al (2005) [8]	Schoolmeester et al (2014) [14]	Conlon et al (2015) [7]
Benign	No worrisome features	Tumors with fewer than 4 features	No more than 1 worrisome feature (including invasive edge, size ≥5 to <10 cm, mitoses 2 to 3 per 50 HPF, lymphovascular invasion)
Uncertain malignant potential	Nuclear pleomorphism/multinucleated giant cells only or size >5 cm only	Tumors with fewer than 4 features	One worrisome feature that includes isolated marked atypia, size ≥10 cm or mitotic count greater than or 4 per 50 HPF
Malignant	Two or more worrisome features	Tumors with 4 or more features	Any necrosis or 2 worrisome features

Back to the Article

Challenges in Diagnosing Metastatic Uterine PEComa: Insights from Two Case Studies

Your Privacy