Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Pathology Research International
Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 608519, 5 pages
Case Report

Undifferentiated Endometrial Sarcoma of the Ovary: A Case Report with Review of Recent Literature and Discussion of Lacking Specificity of CD10 Immunoreactivity

1Department of Pathology, Landesklinikum Thermenregion Mödling, Sr. M. Restitutagasse 12, Mödling A-2340, Austria
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Landesklinikum Thermenregion Mödling, Sr. M. Restitutagasse 12, Mödling A-2340, Austria

Received 31 May 2009; Accepted 16 August 2009

Academic Editor: Fadi W. Abdul-Karim

Copyright © 2010 Hermann Brustmann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Undifferentiated endometrial sarcomas (UESs) of the ovary are very rare tumors. This paper presents a case of a 56-year-old patient with a history of hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy seven years ago for uterine leiomyomata. Intraoperatively, a tumor originating from the left ovary, adherent to the sigmoid colon, with infiltration of the small intestine and the vaginal apex was found. Histologically, the tumor was composed of pleomorphic round and oval to spindled cells with polymorphous vesicular nuclei with coarse chromatin and large nucleoli. Mitotic activity was brisk. There were large necrotic areas. Adjacent to the tumor tissue endometrium-like glands surrounded by fibrous stroma with macrophages corresponding to ovarian endometriosis were noted. Tumor cells showed diffuse strong immunoreactivity for vimentin and patchy strong staining for CD10; no reactivities were found for AE1/AE3, desmin, S-100, LCA, CD20, c-kit, and CD31. The patient died of her neoplastic disease four months postoperatively. CD10 is frequently expressed in different gynecopathological as well as other lesions, and, thus, nonspecific without relevance to the classification of this case. Morphological features, extensive sampling, and appropriate immunohistochemistry including markers for cytokeratins and myogenic differentiation are mandatory to arrive at the correct diagnosis.