Uterine sarcomas constitute about 1% of female genital tract malignancies. And 3% to 7% of Uterine cancer. Uterine sarcomas have an aggressive behaviour. Rarity of the tumour and histopathological diversity has contributed to the lack of consensus on risk factors. The aim of the study was to assess the epidemiological aspects, clinical features and histopathological features of uterine sarcomas.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective record based study of 32 diagnosed cases of uterine sarcoma over a period of 5 years (Jan 2010- Dec 2015) who had attended Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Govt. Medical College Thrissur.Data was collected from the hospital records of 5 years. Variables studied include histology, age, parity, menopausal status, presenting symptoms, clinical features, co-morbidities, ultrasound findings, preoperative diagnosis, and stage of the disease.

Results: The most common histologic variety is Mixed malignant mullerian tumor (44%) followed by Leiomyosarcoma. (22%) MMMT is commonly seen in postmenopausal age group (79%) Leiomyosarcoma and Endometrial stromal sarcoma is mostly seen in the perimenopausal age group (45% & 57% respectively).

Keywords: uterine sarcoma; clinical features; pathological spectrum

1. Bonder-Adler B, Bodner K, Obermair A, et al (2001). Prognostic parameters in carcinosar-comas of the uterus: a clinicopathologic study. Anticancer Res, 21, 3069-74.
2. Brooks SE, Zhan M, Cote T, Baquet CR (2004). Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results analysis of 2677 cases of uterine sarcoma 1989–1999. Gynecol Oncol, 93, 204-8.
3. Fujita H, Adachi S, Kigawa J, et al (2004). A clinicopathological study of uterine sarcoma in last decade—a retrospective study of KCOG/USSG inter group study. Adv Obstet Gynecol, 56,
4. Giuntoli II RL, Metzinger DS, Dimarco CS et al(2003). Retrospective rewiew of 208 patients with lyomyosarcoma of the uterus: prognostic indicators, surgical management, and adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol, 89, 460-9.
5. D’Angelo E, Prat J. Uterine sarcomas: a review. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116: 131–139.
6. Acharya S, Hensley ML, Montag AC, Fleming GF. Rare uterine cancers. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 961–971.
7. Hubalek M, Ramoni A, Mueller-Holzner E, Marth C. Malignant mixed mesodermal tumor after tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 95: 264–266.
8. Wu TI, Yen TC, Lai CH. Clinical presenta­tion and diagnosis of uterine sarcoma, in­cluding imaging. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 25:681–689.
9. Shaan SH, Jagannathan JP, Krajewski K, O’Regen KN, George S, Ramaiya NH. Uter­ine sarcomas: then and now. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199:213–223.
10. Memarzadeh S, Mundt AJ, Berek JS. Uter­ine sarcoma: Classification, clinical man­ifestations, and diagnosis. In: UpToDate, Goff B, Falk SJ, eds. 2012.
11. Seddon BM, Davda R. Uterine sarcomas – recent progress and future challenges. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78:30–40.
12. Tse KY, Crawford R, Ngan HYS. Staging of uterine sarcomas. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 25:733–749.
13. D’Angelo A, Prat J. Uterine sarcomas: a re­view. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116:131–139.
14. Amant F, Coosemans A, Debiec-Rychter M, Timmerman D, Vergote I. Clinical management of uterine sarcomas. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10:1188–11981

Swathi B Shankar

Former Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Govt Medical College, Thrissur

Swathi B Shankar

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.