Gynecological sarcomas, surgical management: primary, metastatic, and recurrent disease.

Adult-type gynecological soft tissue and visceral sarcomas are rare tumors, with an estimated incidence of 13% of all sarcomas and 4% of all gynecological malignancies. They most often develop in the uterus (83%), followed by the ovaries (8%), vulva and vagina (5%), and other gynecological organs (2%). The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the current management of gynecological sarcomas, according to international guidelines. The management of gynecological sarcomas should follow the recommendations for the management of soft tissue and visceral sarcomas. Centralizing cases in expert centers improves patient survival, both for the diagnostic phase and for multidisciplinary therapeutic management. In the case of pelvic soft tissue sarcomas, a radiological biopsy is essential before any surgical decision is taken. In the case of a myometrial tumour which may correspond to a sarcoma, if conservative surgery such as myomectomy or morcellation is planned, an ultrasound-guided biopsy with pathological analysis including comparative genomic hybridization analysis must be carried out. In all cases, en bloc surgery, without rupture, is mandatory. Many rare histological subtypes require specific surgical management.

Genomic profile analysis of leiomyomas with bizarre nuclei and fumarate hydratase deficient leiomyomas: Strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of array-CGH interpretation.

A close relationship has been demonstrated between genomic complexity and clinical outcome in uterine smooth muscle tumors. We studied the genomic profiles by array-CGH of 28 fumarate hydratase deficient leiomyomas and 37 leiomyomas with bizarre nuclei (LMBN) from 64 patients. Follow-up was available for 46 patients (from three to 249 months, mean 87.3 months). All patients were alive without evidence of disease. For 51 array-CGH interpretable tumors the mean Genomic Index (GI) was 16.4 (median: 9.8; from 1 to 57.8), significantly lower than the mean GI in LMS (mean GI 51.8, p < 0.001). We described three groups: (1) a group with FH deletion (24/58) with low GI (mean GI: 11 vs. 22,4, p = 0.02), (2) a group with TP53 deletion (17/58) with higher GI (22.4 vs. 11 p = 0.02), and (3) a group without genomic events on FH or TP53 genes (17/58) (mean GI:18.3; from 1 to 57.8). Because none of these tumors recurred and none showed morphological features of LMS we concluded that GI at the cut-off of 10 was not applicable in these subtypes of LM. By integration of all those findings, a GI <10 in LMBN remains a valuable argument for benignity. Conversely, in LMBN a GI >10 or alteration in tumor suppressor genes, should not alone warrant a diagnosis of malignancy. Nine tumors were tested with Nanocind CINSARC® signature and all were classified in low risk of recurrence. We propose, based on our observations, a diagnostic approach of these challenging lesions.