ReviewBiomedicines2026
An Update on Uterine Smooth Muscle Tumors: Is It a Leiomyoma, a STUMP, or a Leiomyosarcoma?
Review in Biomedicines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Presumed Leiomyoma to Stump: Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy with Contained Morcellation for a Large Unsuspected Borderline Smooth Muscle Tumor.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Epigenetic Regulation of Uterine Smooth Muscle Tumors: Histone Modifications in Uterine Fibroids and Leiomyosarcoma.Biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine smooth muscle tumors (USMTs) represent a diagnostically and clinically challenging subset of uterine mesenchymal neoplasms. Up to 5% of these tumors exhibit ambiguous histological features that preclude definitive classification as either benign leiomyomas or malignant leiomyosarcomas. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the evolving diagnostic criteria, histopathological variants, and recent advancements in immunohistochemical and molecular profiling of smooth muscle tumors with uncertain malignant potential (STUMPs). The review traces the historical development of diagnostic criteria, from the original mitotic thresholds to the "Stanford criteria," which incorporate mitotic index, cytological atypia, and tumor cell necrosis. Contemporary WHO guidelines largely uphold these principles, with nuanced refinements for spindle, myxoid, and epithelioid subtypes. However, recent studies suggest additional morphologic indicators, such as atypical mitoses, infiltrative margins, and vascular invasion, may provide prognostic insight. Notably, necrosis remains the most reliable histologic predictor of recurrence, while mitotic activity and atypia, though important, are less specific. In conclusion, STUMPs represent a heterogeneous group with unpredictable behavior that requires long-term clinical follow-up. While existing histological and molecular tools aid classification, definitive prognostic markers remain elusive. Further studies integrating histopathology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular biology are essential to refine diagnosis and improve therapeutic decision-making in this diagnostically ambiguous group of uterine tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.