Search

Angiosarcomas of the female genital tract are rare and primary angiosarcoma of the cervix is extremely rare with only one prior case report. We report a case of a primary cervical angiosarcoma in a 43-yr-old woman who presented with heavy vaginal bleeding. Cervical biopsy and subsequent radical hysterectomy showed a malignant vascular tumor which was composed of spindled and epithelioid cells and formed abortive vascular channels. Immunohistochemically, the tumor cells were diffusely positive for CD31, CD34, ERG, and cyclin D1 and focally positive for D2-40. A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for YWHAE-NUTM2 genetic fusion was negative excluding a YWHAE-translocated high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma. The tumor formed a 5 cm mass within the cervix with microscopic involvement of the endometrium, superficial myometrium, and vagina. Metastatic microscopic tumor deposits were present in both ovaries, left fallopian tube, one paracervical lymph node, and one pelvic lymph node. In reporting this unusual case we discuss the differential diagnosis.

A wide variety of neoplasms of varying histogenesis occur within the ovary. We report the first case of a primary ovarian myoepithelioma, a diagnosis made on the basis of the morphologic features coupled with immunoreactivity with epithelial and myoid markers. The tumor had a lobulated appearance with variable architectural patterns including anastomosing cords, trabeculae, and nests of epithelioid to spindled tumor cells within a hyalinised and focally myxoid stroma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for EWS gene rearrangement and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for EWSR1-POU5F1 and EWSR1-PBX1, molecular abnormalities which are found in some extrasalivary myoepitheliomas, were negative. In reporting this unique neoplasm, we discuss the wide differential diagnosis generated by the case.

Ovarian small cell carcinoma of hypercalcemic type (OSCCHT) is an uncommon neoplasm of uncertain histogenesis. As far as we are aware, this neoplasm has never been reported in association with another primary ovarian tumor. We report a case in a 33-year-old patient in whom an extraovarian pericolonic neoplasm with the morphological features and immunohistochemical profile of OSCCHT developed 5 years after removal of an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor of the intestinal type. Together with the observation that mucinous epithelium is seen in some OSCCHTs, this case raises the possibility that this enigmatic neoplasm is of epithelial origin and is related to primary ovarian mucinous neoplasms. The pericolonic tumor exhibited an unusual immunophenotype with positive staining with CD99 and FLI-1, suggesting the possibility of a neoplasm in the Ewing family of tumors. This was excluded by molecular studies that showed no evidence of EWS/FLI-1 or EWS/ERG translocation.

Synovial sarcoma is a morphologically and genotypically distinctive soft tissue sarcoma with a strong predilection for young and middle aged adults and the deep soft tissues of the extremities. Rare cases of synovial sarcoma have been reported in a large variety of unusual sites, one of the least common being the female genital tract. We report 4 young women with synovial sarcoma involving the vulva (3 cases) and vagina (1 case). Two of the tumors were of the biphasic and 2 of the monophasic type; 3 of the tumors were poorly differentiated. The diagnosis in all the cases was supported by immunohistochemical findings and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and sequencing demonstration of SS18/SSX fusion transcripts. Two of the patients developed recurrent disease (1 dies of disease after 8 years) and 2 are currently disease-free.This study shows the importance of pathologists being aware of the rare occurrence of synovial sarcoma in the female genital tract, discusses the differential diagnosis with particular reference to this location, emphasizes the need for molecular genetic support in such cases, and reviews the sparse, earlier literature. Synovial sarcoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a vulvovaginal mesenchymal lesion, especially in a young female.

WT-1 positivity has previously been noted in nonneoplastic endometrial stroma. In this study we examined WT-1 expression in endometrial stromal neoplasms to ascertain whether these tumors are immunoreactive and whether this antibody might be of value in the diagnosis of these lesions. We also stained cases of cellular and highly cellular leiomyomas to investigate whether WT-1 might be of value in distinguishing these from an endometrial stromal neoplasm. We compared WT-1 staining with CD10, desmin, alpha smooth muscle actin, h-caldesmon, and AE1/3, many of these antibodies being commonly used to distinguish between an endometrial stromal and a smooth muscle phenotype. Cases of ESN (n = 5), low grade ESS (n = 14), and cellular or highly cellular leiomyoma (n = 14) were stained with the aforementioned antibodies. Cases were scored on a scale of 0 to 4+, with 4+ cases exhibiting positivity of >50% of cells. Sixteen of 19 endometrial stromal neoplasms were positive with WT-1, most (14 of 16) with 4+ positivity. Staining was nuclear (5 cases), cytoplasmic (5 cases), or combined nuclear and cytoplasmic (6 cases). All endometrial stromal neoplasms exhibited 4+ staining with CD10. Staining for alpha smooth muscle actin was present in most cases (14 of 19) and desmin and h-caldesmon were positive in a smaller number of cases (8 and 2 respectively). There was 4+ positivity with desmin in only 1 case. The 2 cases that were h-caldesmon positive both exhibited 1+ staining (<5% cells positive). Six cases were positive with AE1/3, 1 with 4+ staining. Leiomyomatous neoplasms always exhibited 4+ staining with desmin and alpha smooth muscle actin and in most cases (12 of 14) with h-caldesmon. The other 2 cases exhibited 2+ positivity. Most cases (12 of 14) were positive with WT-1 (7 of 14 with 4+ staining) and CD10 (5 of 14 with 4+ positivity). One case was positive with AE1/3. We conclude that diffuse WT-1 positivity is characteristic of endometrial stromal neoplasms and that this may be of value in diagnosis. However, WT-1 is of limited use in the distinction between an endometrial stromal and a cellular leiomyomatous neoplasm because many of the latter are also positive. This study confirms the value of h-caldesmon in the distinction between an endometrial stromal neoplasm (almost always h-caldesmon negative) and a cellular leiomyomatous neoplasm (h-caldesmon positive). Although CD10 is positive in endometrial stromal neoplasms, the commonly observed immunoreactivity of cellular and highly cellular leiomyomas with this antibody limits its diagnostic usefulness. Desmin is useful as all leiomyomatous neoplasms exhibited diffuse positivity, whereas only a small number of endometrial stromal neoplasms were focally positive and only 1 case exhibited 4+ positivity. Smooth muscle actin is of limited value since most neoplasms studied were positive. The overlapping immunophenotype of endometrial stromal and leiomyomatous neoplasms may reflect the origin of both cell types from a common progenitor within the uterus.

The histological distinction between a primary endometrial and a primary endocervical adenocarcinoma is often difficult, especially in small biopsy specimens. A preoperative distinction is important because primary surgical management differs between the two tumors. Cases of primary endometrioid endometrial (n=30) and primary endocervical (n=26) adenocarcinoma of endocervical type were stained immunohistochemically with the monoclonal antibodies against carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), vimentin, estrogen receptor (ER), and 34 beta E12. In all cases the origin of the adenocarcinoma was confirmed by examination of the definitive pathology specimen. There was diffuse positive nuclear staining for ER in 28 of 30 (93%) endometrial adenocarcinomas. ER was negative in 16 of 26 endocervical adenocarcinomas, and there was focal weak nuclear staining in the other cases. Vimentin was positive in 29 of 30 (97%) endometrial adenocarcinomas but in only 2 of 26 (8%) endocervical adenocarcinomas. CEA was positive in 25 of 26 (96%) endocervical adenocarcinomas, mostly with diffuse membranous and cytoplasmic staining. Positivity with CEA was present in 21 of 30 (70%) endometrial adenocarcinomas but was largely confined to squamoid areas with only 12 tumors exhibiting focal membranous staining of the glandular component. 34 beta E12 was diffusely positive in all except one cervical adenocarcinoma. In endometrial carcinomas, positivity was strongest in squamoid areas but there was positive staining, either focally or diffusely, of the glandular component in 27 cases. In summary, primary endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinomas are characterized by diffuse, strong, positive staining for vimentin and ER and negative or very focal, positive staining of the glandular component for CEA. In contrast, primary endocervical adenocarcinomas are characterized by CEA positivity, which is usually but not always diffuse, negativity for vimentin, and negativity or focal weak positivity for ER. 34 beta E12 is of no value in the distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. A panel of immunohistochemical stains, comprising CEA, vimentin, and ER, generally allows confident preoperative distinction between a primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma.