Skip to main content
Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences logoLink to Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences
. 2024 Sep 28;49(9):1400–1411. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2024.230504

宫颈非HPV相关性胃型腺癌的临床特征

Clinical characteristics of non-HPV infection-associated gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma

HUANG Zongyan 1,2, LI Qiaofen 1, CHEN Peilin 1, XIANG Huimin 1, ZENG Xiangyang 1, XIAO Songshu 1,
Editor: 彭 敏宁
PMCID: PMC11814387  PMID: 39931770

Abstract

Objective

Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (GAS) is a special type of cervical adenocarcinoma that is not associated with high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, making early diagnosis challenging. This study aims to investigate the clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of non-HPV infection-associated GAS, summarize relevant experiences, and improve the ability to recognize early lesions.

Methods

A total of 21 patients with GAS treated at the Department of Gynecology, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, from April 2016 to February 2023, were included. Clinical data, including age, clinical manifestations, HPV/thin-prep cytology test (TCT) results, tumor markers, imaging examinations, diagnostic methods, Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) (2018) staging, pathological results, immunohistochemistry findings, treatment, and follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates, log-rank test was used to calculate survival rates, log-rank test was used to compare survival differences, and Cox regression method was used to analyze prognostic factors.

Results

The patients’ ages ranged from 18 to 67 years [(48.4±12.0) years]. The most common initial symptom was noticeable vaginal discharge in 13 cases, followed by purulent vaginal discharge in 1 case, postmenopausal vaginal bleeding in 3 cases, bleeding during intercourse in 2 cases, prolonged menstruation in 1 case, and lower abdominal distension in 1 case. Except for 2 patients without sexual experience, the remaining patients underwent TCT and HPV testing, with 17 HPV-negative cases and 2 HPV-positive cases (1 for type 16 and 1 unclassified); TCT results were negative in 13 cases, with 2 cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), 1 case of atypical glandular cells-not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS), 1 case of atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H), and 2 cases of atypical glandular cells (AGC). Preoperative tumor markers were elevated in 6 of 12 cases for CA199, 4 of 21 cases for CA125, 3 of 13 cases for human epididymal protein 4 (HE4), and 1 of 19 cases for squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC). Among the 21 patients who underwent preoperative ultrasound, 9 cases were suspected to have cervical malignancy, and 1 case of endometrial malignancy was identified. In the 17 patients who underwent pelvic MRI, 9 cases were suspected of having cervical malignancy, along with 2 cases of endometrial malignancy. In the 9 patients who underwent pelvic CT, 7 cases were suspected of cervical malignancy. For preoperative pathology, 9 patients had a single biopsy with a confirmation rate of 33.3% (3/9), 7 patients had 2 biopsies with a confirmation rate of 71.4% (5/7), and 5 patients had 3 biopsies with a confirmation rate of 100% (5/5), leading to an overall confirmation rate of 61.9% (13/21). All patients underwent surgical treatment, with postoperative pathological staging: 3 cases at stage ⅠB1, 1 case at stage ⅠB2, 2 cases at stage ⅠB3, 1 case at stage ⅡA1, 1 case at stage ⅡA2, 2 cases at stage ⅡB, 7 cases at stage ⅢC1p, and 4 cases at stage ⅢC2p. Para-cervical infiltration was observed in 7 cases, with residual cancer at the vaginal stump in 2 cases, deep stromal infiltration (depth ≥1/2) in 19 cases, lymphovascular space invasion in 15 cases, neural invasion in 9 cases, pelvic lymph node metastasis in 11 cases, and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in 4 cases. The follow-up time ranged from 3.5 to 28.0 months (median: 13.5 months), with 13 cases not experiencing recurrence, 7 cases relapsing (6 deceased, 1 alive with tumor), and 1 case lost to follow-up. The overall survival (OS) ranged from 3.5 to 28.0 months [(22.7±1.8) months], and disease-free survival (DFS) ranged from 3.5 to 28.0 months [(20.4±2.3) months]. OS showed no correlation with age, tumor stage, tumor size, depth of stromal infiltration, lymphovascular space invasion, lymph node metastasis, or treatment method (all P>0.05). Cox regression analysis indicated that age, pathological stage, tumor size, depth of stromal infiltration, lymphovascular space invasion, neural invasion, and lymph node metastasis were not associated with DFS or OS (all P>0.05).

Conclusion

GAS is rare in clinical practice, prone to missed or misdiagnosis, with a low early diagnosis rate, strong invasiveness, high recurrence and metastasis rates, and poor prognosis. Clinicians should be vigilant for this disease in HPV-negative patients with significant vaginal discharge and consider performing multiple deep tissue biopsies in conjunction with imaging examinations for early diagnosis.

Keywords: gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma, non-HPV infection, clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis


宫颈胃型腺癌(gastric-type endocervical adeno-carcinoma,GAS)是一种特殊类型的宫颈腺癌,与高危型人乳头瘤病毒(human papilloma virus,HPV)感染无相关性,临床上非常少见。部分临床医师对此类疾病认识不足,早期诊断困难,容易漏诊、误诊,且此类疾病侵袭性强、易复发转移,患者预后差[1-4]。因此,本研究通过回顾性分析21例GAS患者的临床资料,探讨其临床特点、诊断、治疗及预后,总结相关经验,以提高妇科医师对早期病变的识别能力。

1. 资料与方法

1.1. 临床资料

收集中南大学湘雅三医院妇科2016年4月至2023年2月收治的21例GAS患者的临床资料,包括年龄、临床表现、HPV/薄层液基细胞学检查(thin-prep cytology test,TCT)结果、肿瘤标志物、影像学检查、诊断方式、国际妇产科协会(Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics,FIGO)(2018)分期、病理检查结果、免疫组织化学检查结果、治疗情况等。纳入标准:病理检查联合免疫组织化学诊断为GAS。排除标准:临床资料不完整;随访信息不可靠。本研究已获中南大学湘雅三医院伦理委员会批准(审批号:快23775)。

1.2. 随访

通过门诊、住院及电话咨询等方式对患者进行随访,随访起始时间为患者接受手术治疗的时间,随访截至2023年5月。无病生存期(disease-free survival,DFS)为手术日至复发或随访截止日期,总生存期(overall survival,OS)为手术日至死亡或随访截止日期。

1.3. 统计学处理

采用SPSS 26.0及GraphPad Prism10.1.0软件进行统计学分析,计数资料以率表示,采用χ 2检验比较,计量资料以均数±标准差( x¯ ±s)表示,采用t检验比较。采用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,log-rank检验生存率差异,Cox回归法分析患者预后的影响因素。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2. 结 果

2.1. 临床特点

21例患者年龄18~67(48.4±12.0)岁,其中无性生活者2例,绝经后妇女7例,子宫次全切除术后1例。首发症状为大量阴道流液13例,包括透明黏液状5例,透明水样8例,其中1例有多年咳嗽溢尿史;阴道排脓1例;绝经后阴道流血3例(14.3%);同房出血2例;经期延长1例;下腹坠胀1例。妇科检查(无性生活者宫腔镜所见)结果:宫颈肥大13例,正常大小1例,结节状肿块外观7例,菜花样肿块外观3例,可见异形血管2例,糜烂8例,光滑2例,质硬11例。

2.2. 实验室及影像学检查

除了2例无性生活者,其余患者均行TCT、HPV检测。HPV阴性17例,阳性2例(16型、未分型各1例);TCT阴性13例,无明确诊断意义的不典型鳞状细胞(atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance,ASC-US)2例,不典型腺细胞无具体指定(atypical glandular cells-not otherwise specified,AGC-NOS)1例,不能排除高级别鳞状上皮内瘤变的不典型鳞状细胞(atypical squamous cells: cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion,ASC-H)1例,非典型腺细胞(atypical glandular cells,AGC)2例。术前肿瘤标志物CA199升高6例(6/12)、CA125升高4例(4/21)、人附睾蛋白4(human epididymal protein 4,HE4)升高3例(3/13)、鳞状细胞癌抗原(squamous cell carcinoma antigen,SCC)升高1例(1/19),甲胎蛋白(alpha fetoprotein,AFP)(12/12)、癌胚抗原(carcino-embryonic antigen,CEA)(20/20)、CA153(9/9)均正常。21例患者术前均行B超检查,其中探及宫颈不均质高回声团5例,宫颈低回声团6例,宫颈混合回声团2例,宫颈多发无回声区7例,宫颈探及丰富血流信号7例,子宫内膜回声不均匀2例,宫腔液暗区10例(大量液暗区3例),考虑宫颈恶性肿瘤9例,子宫内膜恶性肿瘤1例。行盆腔MRI(图1)检查者17例,其中提示宫颈体积增大11例,宫颈等T1稍长T2信号灶6例,弥散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging,DWI)序列病灶呈不均匀高信号11例,相应表观弥散系数(apparent diffusion coefficient,ADC)图低信号11例,增强扫描呈不均匀强化8例,宫颈多发囊状长T2信号灶7例,宫腔积液8例,考虑宫颈恶性肿瘤9例,子宫内膜恶性肿瘤2例。行盆腔CT检查者9例,提示宫颈体积增大5例(其中团状/结节状肿块2例),宫腔积液4例,考虑宫颈恶性肿瘤7例。

图1.

图1

盆腔磁共振图像

Figure 1 Pelvic MRI images

A: Tumor invasion of the endometrium; B, C, and D: Cervical hypertrophy with polycystic changes around the mass; E: Cervical hypertrophy, heterogeneous slightly hyperechoic mass; F: Significant uterine fluid collection.

2.3. 术前诊断方式

行病理检查1次者9例,2次者7例,3次者5例,确诊率为61.9%(13/21)。1次病理检查:阴道镜活检6例,宫腔镜检+宫颈管组织电切活检3例,确诊率为33.3%(3/9)。2次病理检查:无损伤处女膜宫腔镜检2次1例,阴道镜活检2次1例,阴道镜活检未确诊行宫腔镜检+分段诊刮1例,阴道镜活检未确诊行残余宫颈及肿块切除1例,宫腔镜检转阴道镜活检2例,宫颈镜检+分段诊刮+宫颈锥切后筋膜外全子宫切除1例,确诊率为71.4%(5/7)。3次病理检查:宫腔镜检及分段诊刮、阴道镜活检均阴性再行宫颈leep术1例,宫腔镜检+分段诊刮、阴道镜活检均阴性再行阴道镜活检1例,宫颈管搔刮、宫腔镜检及颈管组织电切未确诊再行宫颈锥切1例,阴道镜活检阴性行宫腔镜检+分段诊刮+宫颈管组织电切,病理结果未确诊再行B超引导下宫颈后方肿块穿刺活检1例,宫腔镜检阴性后行阴道镜活检仍阴性再行宫腔镜检+宫颈肿块电切1例,确诊率为100%(5/5,表1)。

表1.

患者的临床特点、诊断、治疗及预后情况

Table 1 Clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of the patients

编号 年龄/岁 首发症状 病程 HPV TCT 临床分期

病理

分期

诊断方式

肿瘤

最长径/cm

治疗方式

DFS/

OS/

结局
1 29 阴道流液 1年 ⅡB ⅢC2p (3) 7.0

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

10 22 带瘤生存
2 30 阴道流液 5+个月 阴性 阴性 ⅢC1p (4)(1)(9) 4.5

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

27 27 无瘤生存
3 18 阴道流液 5个月 ⅢB ⅢC2p (3)(3) 2.5

宫颈癌动脉造影、灌注化疗、栓塞术+新辅助化疗+根治性手术(保留右侧

卵巢)+化疗

6 10 死亡
4 42 阴道流液 1+ 阴性 ASC-US ⅡB ⅡB (1)(1) 7.5

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

6 17 死亡
5 63

绝经后

阴道流液

5年 阴性 ASC-US ⅡB ⅢC1p (4)(1)(1) 4.0 新辅助化疗+根治性手术+同步放化疗 5 9 死亡
6 61 下腹坠胀 3+ 阴性 AGC-NOS ⅢC1p (1)(8) 7.0

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

8 13 死亡
7 43 阴道流液 3个月 阴性 阴性 ⅠB1 ⅠB1 (2)(5)(10) 0.8 根治性手术+化疗 22 22 无瘤生存
8 51 阴道流液 4个月 阴性 阴性 ⅠB2 IB3 (5) 3.0 根治性手术+化疗 24 24 无瘤生存
9 42 阴道排脓 1+ 阴性 阴性 ⅠB1 ⅠB1 (1)(6)(12) 2.7 根治性手术+化疗 24 24 失访
10 50 阴道流液 1年 阴性 阴性 ⅠB1 ⅠB1 (11)(14) 1.5 根治性手术 10 10 无瘤生存
11 44 同房出血 6个月 阴性 阴性 ⅡA2 ⅢC2p (1) 4.0 新辅助化疗+根治性手术+同步放化疗 13 13 无瘤生存
12 63 绝经后阴道流液 1+ 阴性 阴性 ⅡA1 ⅢC1p (4)(1)(5) 2.9

根治性手术+同步

放化疗+补充化疗

3.5 3.5 无瘤生存
13 48 阴道流液 1+ 阴性 AGC ⅠB3 ⅢC1p (4)(1) 2.5

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

13.5 13.5 无瘤生存
14 49 同房出血 2个月 阴性 AGC ⅡA1 ⅡB (1) 2.2

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

8.5 8.5 无瘤生存
15 44 经期延长 3个月 阴性 阴性 ⅡA2 ⅡA2 (1) 4.1 新辅助化疗+根治性手术+同步放化疗 28 28 无瘤生存
编号 年龄/岁 首发症状 病程 HPV TCT 临床分期

病理

分期

诊断方式

肿瘤

最长径/cm

治疗方式

DFS/

OS/

结局
16 53 阴道流液 2年 阴性 阴性 ⅠB2 ⅠB2 (7) 3.8

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

12 12 无瘤生存
17 52 阴道流血 20 d 阴性 阴性 ⅡA1 ⅡA1 (1) 3.2

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

9 9 无瘤生存
18 67 绝经后阴道流血 1个月 阴性 阴性 ⅡA1 ⅢC1p (1) 4.2

根治性手术+同步

放化疗

10 12 死亡
19 56 绝经后阴道流血 20 d 阴性 阴性 ⅠB2 ⅢC1p (4)(1) 2.5 根治性手术+化疗3次+放疗2次 20 20 无瘤生存
20 62 绝经后阴道流液 6个月 16型 ASC-H ⅡA2 ⅢC2p (1) 5.0 新辅助化疗+根治性手术+同步放化疗 14 23 死亡
21 49 阴道流液 1年 未分型 阴性 ⅠB3 ⅠB3 (1)(13) 7.0 根治性手术+化疗 24 24 无瘤生存

(1)阴道镜活检;(2)阴道镜活检+颈管搔刮;(3)无损伤处女膜宫腔镜检;(4)宫腔镜检+分段诊刮;(5)宫腔镜检+宫颈管组织电切;(6)宫腔镜检+分段诊刮+宫颈管组织电切术;(7)宫腔镜检+宫颈管组织电切+宫腔组织吸引;(8)宫腔镜检+宫颈管赘生物摘除+颈管搔刮;(9)宫颈leep术;(10)宫颈锥切;(11)宫颈镜检+分段诊刮+宫颈锥切;(12)B超引导下经阴道宫颈后方肿块穿刺活检术;(13)经阴道残余宫颈及肿块切除术;(14)腹腔镜下全子宫+双附件切除术。HPV:高危型人乳头瘤病毒;TCT:薄层液基细胞学检查;DFS:无病生存期;OS:总生存期。ASC-US:无明确诊断意义的不典型鳞状细胞;ASC-H:不能排除高级别鳞状上皮内病变的不典型鳞状细胞;AGC-NOS:不典型腺细胞无具体指定;AGC:不典型腺细胞。

2.4. 治疗方式

所有患者均行手术治疗,行广泛性全子宫+双侧附件+盆腔淋巴结切除术19例(包括筋膜外子宫切除术后因病检升级补行广泛切除1例),行广泛性全子宫+左侧附件+右侧输卵管+盆腔淋巴结切除术1例,子宫次全切除术后患者行广泛性残余宫颈切除+双侧附件+盆腔淋巴结切除术1例,其中同时行腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除15例,大网膜切除8例,阑尾切除7例,保留右侧卵巢1例。术前宫颈癌动脉造影+灌注化学治疗(以下简称“化疗”)+栓塞术1例,新辅助化疗5例[PT(顺铂+紫杉醇类)/TC(紫杉醇类+环磷酰胺)方案1~2疗程],术后单纯性辅助化疗5例[PT/PF(顺铂+5-氟尿嘧啶)/DP(多西他赛+顺铂)方案1~5疗程],辅助同步放射治疗+化疗15例(铂类每周单药/PT方案化疗2~5疗程,盆腔区域放疗±阴道后装治疗2~25次,其中完成足疗程者12例),未行辅助治疗1例。

2.5. 分期

采用FIGO(2018)分期标准,临床分期:ⅠB1期3例,ⅠB2期3例,ⅠB3期2例,ⅡA1期4例,ⅡA2期3例,ⅡB期3例,ⅢB期1例,未分期2例。术后病理分期:ⅠB1期3例,ⅠB2期1例,ⅠB3期2例,ⅡA1期1例,ⅡA2期1例,ⅡB期2例,ⅢC1p期7例,ⅢC2p期4例。

2.6. 病理及免疫组织化学检查

肿瘤浸润深度/最长径为0.8~7.5 cm,<4 cm者11例,≥4 cm者10例。术后病理诊断宫颈胃型腺癌21例,其中非典型性叶状增生伴局灶胃型腺癌1例,微偏腺癌(minimal deviation adenocarcinoma,MDA)7例,MDA伴部分肠型黏液腺癌1例、伴区域普通型腺癌1例,非典型性叶状增生伴局灶MDA 1例(图2)。宫旁浸润7例(33.3%),阴道残端癌残留2例(9.5%),深间质浸润(浸润深度≥1/2)19例(90.5%),淋巴管或血管间隙浸润15例(71.4%),神经侵犯9例(42.9%),盆腔淋巴结转移11例(52.4%),腹主动脉旁淋巴结转移4例(19.0%),侵犯阴道上段11例(52.4%)、宫体肌层15例(71.4%)、侵犯子宫内膜、输卵管、卵巢各4例(均19.0%)、膀胱腹膜返折、盆壁腹膜转移各1例(均4.8%)、淋巴结周围脂肪组织2例(9.5%)、大网膜1例(4.8%),阑尾0例(0)。卵巢黏液性囊腺瘤2例(9.5%),一侧/双侧卵巢滤泡囊肿9例(42.9%)。

图2.

图2

宫颈胃型腺癌的病理检查结果(HE染色)

Figure 2 Pathological examination results of gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (HE staining)

A: Nuclei are distinctly heterogenous with clear cytoplasm (×200). B: Highly differentiated changes with small nuclear atypia at the base (×200). C and D: Glands shows atypical foliar hyperplasia (×100). E and F: Glands are arranged disorderly and varied in morphology (×200).

免疫组织和化学检测中黏蛋白6(mucin 6,MUC6)阳性率88.2%(15/17);细胞角蛋白(cytokeratin,CK)7阳性率100%(16/16),其中强阳性率56.3%(9/16);CK20阳性率20%(3/15);尾型同盒转录子-2(caudal type homeobox 2,CDX-2)阳性率20%(2/10);CEA弱阳性率70.6%(12/17);SATB2阳性率0(0/8);P16弱阳性率33.3%(7/21)例;P53阳性率30%(6/20)、野生型40%(8/20)、错义突变20% (4/20);雌激素受体(estrogen receptor,ER)弱阳性率12.5%(2/16);孕激素受体(progesterone receptor,PR)弱阳性率6.3%(1/16);Ki-67 2%~10%阳性率33.3% (7/21)、15%~30%阳性率38.1%(8/21)、40%~60%阳性率28.6%(6/21)。

2.7. 生存预后情况

20例患者完成随访,1例术后2年失访。随访时间3.5~28.0(中位数13.5)个月,13例未复发,7例复发(6例死亡,1例带瘤生存)。1例术后10个月出现阴道残端复发;1例术后6个月出现右侧卵巢、腹膜后、左侧腹股沟淋巴结转移,术后10个月死亡;1例术后6个月出现输尿管、肠道转移,术后17个月死亡;1例术后5个月出现腹膜、网膜、腹壁、右侧输尿管转移,术后9个月死亡;1例术后8个月出现输尿管和肠道转移,术后13个月死亡;1例术后10个月出现肠道转移,术后12个月死亡;1例术后14个月出现阴道残端、腹膜后及淋巴结、左侧输尿管、膀胱等复发转移,术后23个月死亡。本组患者OS为3.5~28.0(22.7±1.8)个月,DFS为3.5~28.0(20.4±2.3)个月,1年、2年累积总生存率分别为83.2%和57.6%(图3)。本组患者OS与年龄、肿瘤分期、肿瘤大小、间质浸润深度、淋巴管或血管间隙浸润、淋巴结转移、治疗方式均无关(均P>0.05,图4)。Cox回归分析显示年龄、病理分期、肿瘤大小、间质浸润深度、淋巴管或血管间隙浸润、神经侵犯、淋巴结转移与患者的DFS、OS均无关(均P>0.05,表2)。

图3.

图3

Kaplan-Meier生存曲线

Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier survival curves

A: Disease-free survival; B: Overall survival.

图4.

图4

各临床指标与GAS患者OS的相关性

Figure 4 Relevance between clinical parameters and OS of GAS patients

A: Correlation between OS and age of GAS patients; B: Correlation between OS and pathological stage of GAS patients; C: Correlation between OS and tumor size in GAS patients; D: Correlation between OS and depth of stromal invasion in GAS patients; E: Correlation between OS and lymphatic-vascular space invasion in GAS patients; F: Correlation between OS and lymph node metastasis in GAS patients; G: Correlation between OS and treatment modality in GAS patients. GAS: Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma; OS: Overall survival; HR: Hazard ratio.

表2.

患者无病生存期与总生存期危险因素的多因素分析

Table 2 Multivariate analysis of risk factors for DFS and OS of patients

变量 DFS OS
HR(95% CI) P HR(95% CI) P
年龄 0.558(0.115~2.707) 0.469 0.255(0.033~1.943) 0.187
病理分期 0.709(0.072~6.966) 0.768 1.251(0.095~16.495) 0.865
肿瘤大小 0.327(0.036~2.945) 0.319 0.676(0.066~6.904) 0.741
间质浸润深度 0.382(0.000~) 0.999 0.333(0.000~) 0.999
淋巴管或血管间隙浸润 0.000(0.000~) 0.975 0.000(0.000~) 0.974
神经侵犯 0.875(0.177~4.337) 0.870 0.859(0.143~5.165) 0.868

DFS:无病生存期;OS:总生存期;HR:风险比;CI:置信区间。

3. 讨 论

随着宫颈HPV疫苗的普及,HPV相关性宫颈癌的发病率逐渐下降,而非HPV相关性宫颈癌的发病率有相对上升趋势[5]。GAS作为非HPV相关性宫颈癌的常见类型,在宫颈腺癌的占比由1%~3%逐渐上升至10%~25%[6-7]。目前其发病原因尚未明确,可能由叶状宫颈腺体增生(lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia,LEGH)、非典型LEGH、胃型原位腺癌等前驱病变发展而来[8]。研究[9-10]报道一部分GAS患者合并Peutz-Jeghers综合征、卵巢环状小管性索间质肿瘤、卵巢黏液性肿瘤等疾病,本组患者病理结果提示非典型LEGH 2例,卵巢黏液性囊腺瘤2例,卵巢滤泡囊肿9例,GAS的发病可能与这些疾病的发生、发展相关,具体发病机制有待探究。

GAS早期诊断困难,容易漏诊、误诊,主要原因在于:1)GAS发病率低,临床表现缺乏特异性,首发症状多表现为大量水样或黏液样阴道流液,少部分出现与常见宫颈癌类似的症状,如绝经后阴道流血、同房后出血、下腹胀痛等[11],另一部分还可出现反复阴道排脓、宫腔积液等,有盆底功能障碍的患者出现压力性尿失禁,易与阴道水样流液混淆,未能引起重视,导致病情发展。2)GAS的病灶多位于宫颈上段、宫颈内腺体的深部,宫颈局部通常无明显外生性肿块,多描述为“桶状”宫颈[1, 12]。本组患者宫颈多表现为肥大、糜烂,部分可见异型血管、肿块样外观,可能与肿瘤明显侵犯、分期较晚有关,部分早期患者宫颈光滑、病灶小,无明显“桶状”宫颈表现,阴道镜活检确诊率低。3)GAS在传统宫颈癌“三阶梯”筛查中受限,大部分患者HPV及TCT筛查阴性,阴道镜转诊率低。本组患者HPV阴性率达89.47%,TCT阴性率达68.42%,小部分TCT筛查提示ASC-US、AG-NOS、ASC-H或AGC。4)无性生活女性的筛查更为困难[13],常采取无创性检查,缺乏妇科检查、HPV及TCT筛查的诊断证据,如肛查或者影像学提示有明显病灶时,无损伤处女膜宫腔镜可能是一种筛查选择,但宫腔镜检查费用高,无损伤处女膜宫腔镜对于妇科医师的操作技术要求高。

对于HPV/TCT结果阴性但有明显的阴道流液、流血症状时,可借助影像学来进一步判断。本组患者大多数B超检查提示宫颈有不均质高回声、低回声及混合回声等异常回声团;MRI检查提示宫颈等T1稍长T2信号灶,DWI序列病灶呈不均匀高信号,相应ADC图低信号,增强扫描呈不均匀强化。CT也是常规的辅助检查,但B超和MRI对于宫颈病变、宫腔积液及宫颈多发囊肿的检出率更高。影像学上仍需与其他类型宫颈癌、宫颈癌侵犯宫内膜、子宫内膜病变、宫颈纳氏囊肿、宫颈粘连狭窄导致宫腔积液等相鉴别。蒋文燕等[14]认为大量黏液腺形成的囊状回声是腺癌独有的特点。钱亭等[15]研究报道了实性成分为主的GAS在MRI上通常表现等T1稍长T2信号,DWI呈高信号,增强扫描明显强化;以囊性成分为主的T2为高信号,DWI未见明显高信号。刘明明等[16]研究发现GAS在T1上均表现为等信号,T2及压脂(fat suppression,FS)T2上囊实性肿块的囊呈弥漫或簇状分布,大小不一,多位于深肌层,小囊表现为较规则的圆形,大囊形态不规则且囊壁不光滑,囊与囊之间可见等或稍高信号不规则条状或颗粒状分隔。Takatsu等[17] 及Ohya等[18]研究发现GAS在MRI上呈现“宇宙征”,即病灶通常位于子宫颈中上段,可表现为中央较小的囊性或实性病灶,周围包绕着较大的囊肿。

血清肿瘤标志物也具有诊断价值,本组患者CA199、CA125的阳性率较高,AFP、CEA、CA153均正常。文献[19-20]报道大于50%的GAS患者CA199升高,约1/3有CA125升高,而CA125的升高可能提示有盆腹腔转移。监测CA199、CA125的变化或许可作为评估治疗效果或复发的参考。

由于GAS病灶部位较隐匿,取材时不易取到病灶组织,增加了诊断的难度。本组患者术前病检1次者9例,2次者7例,3次者5例,1次病检者多存在宫颈明显肿瘤样外观,通过阴道镜或宫腔镜下颈管组织电切活检诊断,但确诊率不高,原因在于获取组织少,未能准确分型,仅可判断为宫颈恶性肿瘤;2、3次病检者多为早期病变、宫颈病变较深、活检取材少,考虑良性病变等需多次取材,进行多点、宫颈大块病灶切除送检,采用宫颈leep术、锥切、经B超引导行肿块穿刺等可提高确诊率,但仍有2例患者出现锥切病理漏诊,导致手术切除范围不够。另外,对于不能通过窥阴器行宫颈暴露的无性生活女性,可采用无损伤处女膜宫腔镜检来明确病变情况。研究[20]报道单次子宫颈活检的诊断率为40%,多次活检未能进一步提高诊断率,而联合子宫颈锥切、诊断性刮宫可提高诊断率至50%。临床上建议采用宫颈和宫颈管的深活检(>5 mm)或宫颈锥切来提高检出率,也有学者建议采用深度>8 mm的活检和锥切来明确诊断,当腺体浸润宫颈上皮>8 mm时应警惕GAS[21]

病理检查是诊断的金标准,在常规病理检查中分化较好的GAS难以与良性病变区分,需联合免疫组织化学检测,减少或避免病理上的漏诊、误诊。MUC6和HIK1083是胃型黏液的免疫标志物[22],两者在GAS中阳性率较高,但灵敏度一般,HIK1083的特异度较MUC6高。据报道[23]MUC6的灵敏度和特异度分别为0.51、0.74,HIK1083分别为0.64、0.94。CK7、CDX2、CK20和CEA在GAS中多呈局灶阳性或弥漫阳性,P16一般呈阴性或局灶阳性[24];约一半的患者存在p53突变型表达[25];ER、PR多为阴性,Ki-67阳性率通常<40%[11]。本组患者均行免疫组织化学检测,其中MUC6阳性率88.2%,CK7阳性率100%,P16、CK20、CDX-2、CEA、ER、PR阳性率较低;约60%的p53为野生型、错义突变表达;2%~10%、15%~30%及40~60%Ki-67阳性占比分别为33.3%、38.1%及28.6%,与文献[11, 23-25]报道基本相符。

目前没有统一的GAS治疗指南,2023年中国专家共识[11]提出早期患者以手术治疗为主,术后辅助放射治疗、化疗、靶向治疗,手术范围推荐为广泛子宫切除+盆腔淋巴结切除±腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术,同时建议切除双附件、大网膜、阑尾及盆腹腔内转移病变。虽然年轻患者有保留生育功能和卵巢的需求,但即使对早期病变,也不建议保留[26]。GAS的侵袭性强,GAS的卵巢转移率约为25.5%[27]。本组1例年轻患者强烈要求保留肉眼无明显病变的右侧卵巢,术后6个月影像学检查提示卵巢转移。本组患者大多数伴有宫旁浸润、淋巴结转移、淋巴管或血管间隙浸润、神经侵犯、卵巢转移、周围脏器转移等。因此除了切除一切肉眼可见病灶外,有高危转移风险的周围组织也应尽可能切除。

GAS确诊时多达晚期,术后中高危因素多,对于普通宫颈腺癌常采用“四因素模型”标准进行辅助放射治疗和化疗[28]。专家认为GAS恶性程度高,建议适当放宽术后放射治疗和化疗指征[11]。本组约71.4%的患者术后辅助同步放射治疗和化疗,约23.8%的患者术后单纯性辅助化疗。但GAS对放射治疗和化疗的敏感性差[29-30]。Kojima等[31]采用多西他赛和卡铂联合新辅助化疗研究GAS与普通型宫颈腺癌的药物敏感性,发现GAS的有效率明显低于普通型宫颈腺癌。GAS易复发转移、预后差,研究[1]报道GAS在9年内复发率约40%,而普通型宫颈腺癌为14.6%。本组约33.3%的患者术后6~14个月即出现盆腹腔多发组织脏器转移。Karamurzin等[6]发现GAS的转移部位包括淋巴结、附件、网膜、肠、腹膜、膈肌、腹壁、膀胱、阴道、阑尾和脑,GAS患者5年的生存率为42%,而普通型宫颈腺癌患者的5年生存率为91%。本研究没有与普通腺癌及鳞癌进行比较,Cox回归分析未得到有统计学意义的指标,事实上肿瘤性质——胃型腺癌本身就是DFS和OS的主要危险因素。

综上所述,GAS的发病与高危型HPV感染不相关,临床症状缺乏特异性,病灶较深导致取材困难,常规筛查和活检阳性率低。临床上对于HPV阴性但有明显阴道流液者,应警惕GAS的可能,可采用多次多点、获得较深组织的活检方式并结合影像学检查尽早明确诊断。

基金资助

湖南省卫生健康委员会科研计划项目(202205012566)。This work was supported by the Health Commission Scientific Research Project of Hunan Province, China (202205012566).

利益冲突声明

作者声称无任何利益冲突。

作者贡献

黄宗燕 资料收集,论文撰写; 李巧芬、陈佩琳、向慧敏 资料收集;曾向阳、肖松舒 论文指导与修改。所有作者阅读并同意最终的文本。

Footnotes

http://dx.chinadoi.cn/10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2024.230504

原文网址

http://xbyxb.csu.edu.cn/xbwk/fileup/PDF/2024091400.pdf

参考文献

  • 1. Nishio S, Mikami Y, Tokunaga H, et al. Analysis of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix—An aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis: a multi-institutional study[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 153(1): 13-19. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Mikami Y. Gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the cervix and its precursors—historical overview[J]. Histopathology, 2020, 76(1): 102-111. 10.1111/his.13993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Lu JL, Na J, Li Y, et al. Gastric-type mucinous endocervical adenocarcinomas: a case report and literature review[J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2022, 12: 917009. 10.3389/fcimb.2022.917009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Chen LL, Lucas E, Zhang XF, et al. Programmed death-ligand 1 expression in human papillomavirus-independent cervical adenocarcinoma and its prognostic significance[J]. Histopathology, 2022, 80(2): 338-347. 10.1111/his.14552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. 张国楠, 王登凤. 重视子宫颈胃型腺癌,提高精准诊治水平[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2021, 37(1): 25-28. 10.19538/j.fk2021010106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; ZHANG Guonan, WANG Dengfeng. Paying attention to gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma and improving the level of precise diagnosis and treatment[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2021, 37(1): 25-28. 10.19538/j.fk2021010106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Karamurzin YS, Kiyokawa T, Parkash V, et al. Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma: an aggressive tumor with unusual metastatic patterns and poor prognosis[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2015, 39(11): 1449-1457. 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Li GL, Jiang W, Gui SQ, et al. Minimal deviation adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2010, 110(2): 89-92. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.03.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Park KJ. Cervical adenocarcinoma: integration of HPV status, pattern of invasion, morphology and molecular markers into classification[J]. Histopathology, 2020, 76(1): 112-127. 10.1111/his.13995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Mikami Y, McCluggage WG. Endocervical glandular lesions exhibiting gastric differentiation: an emerging spectrum of benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions[J]. Adv Anat Pathol, 2013, 20(4): 227-237. 10.1097/PAP.0b013e31829c2d66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kwon SY, Choe MS, Lee HW, et al. Minimal deviation adenocarcinoma of the cervix and tumorlets of sex-cord stromal tumor with annular tubules of the ovary in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 24(1): 92-95. 10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. 张国楠, 向阳, 王登凤, 等. 子宫颈胃型腺癌临床诊治中国专家共识(2023年版)[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2023, 39(6): 617-625. 10.19538/j.fk2023060111. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; ZHANG Guonan, XIANG Yang, WANG Dengfeng, et al. Chinese expert consensus on clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (2023 edition)[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2023, 39(6): 617-625. 10.19538/j.fk2023060111. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Pirog EC, Park KJ, Kiyokawa T, et al. Gastric-type adenocarcinoma of the cervix: tumor with wide range of histologic appearances[J]. Adv Anat Pathol, 2019, 26(1): 1-12. 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. 范秀华, 刘淳, 邢小芬, 等. 宫腔镜对未婚阴道斜隔综合征的早期诊断与治疗的临床意义[J]. 中国妇产科临床杂志, 2010, 11(6): 423-425. 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1861.2010.06.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; FAN Xiuhua, LIU Chun, XING Xiaofen, et al. The significance of early diagnosis and treatment of singlehood patients with congenital oblique vaginal septum syndrome by hysteroscope[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2010, 11(6): 423-425. 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1861.2010.06.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. 蒋文燕, 张国南, 谭敏丽. 子宫颈胃型腺癌超声表现1例[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2023, 39(6): 721. 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0101.2023.06.035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; JIANG Wenyan, ZHANG Guonan, TAN Minli. Ultrasonic manifestations of gastric adenocarcinoma of cervix: a case report[J]. Chinese Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2023, 39(6): 721. 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0101.2023.06.035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. 钱亭, 刘嵘, 钱朝霞, 等. 宫颈胃型腺癌MRI征象与病理对照分析[J]. 中国医学计算机成像杂志, 2022, 28(6): 616-620. 10.19627/j.cnki.cn31-1700/th.2022.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; QIAN Ting, LIU Rong, QIAN Zhaoxia, et al. The comparative analysis of MRI and pathology in cases of gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma[J]. Chinese Computed Medical Imaging, 2022, 28(6): 616-620. 10.19627/j.cnki.cn31-1700/th.2022.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. 刘明明, 梁宇霆. 宫颈胃型黏液腺癌的MRI表现[J]. 国际医学放射学杂志, 2021, 44(5): 589-592. 10.19300/j.2021.L18511. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; LIU Mingming, LIANG Yuting. Magnetic resonance imaging of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix[J]. International Journal of Medical Radiology, 2021, 44(5): 589-592. 10.19300/j.2021.L18511. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Takatsu A, Shiozawa T, Miyamoto T, et al. Preoperative differential diagnosis of minimal deviation adenocarcinoma and lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia of the uterine cervix: a multicenter study of clinicopathology and magnetic resonance imaging findings[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2011, 21(7): 1287-1296. 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31821f746c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ohya A, Kobara H, Miyamoto T, et al. Usefulness of the ‘cosmos pattern’ for differentiating between cervical gastric-type mucin-positive lesions and other benign cervical cystic lesions in magnetic resonance images[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2021, 47(2): 745-756. 10.1111/jog.14602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Nakamura A, Yamaguchi K, Minamiguchi S, et al. Mucinous adenocarcinoma, gastric type of the uterine cervix: clinical features and HER2 amplification[J]. Med Mol Morphol, 2019, 52(1): 52-59. 10.1007/s00795-018-0202-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. 王登凤, 张国楠, 石宇, 等. 子宫颈胃型腺癌11例临床分析[J]. 肿瘤预防与治疗, 2021, 34(5): 431-437. 10.3969/j.issn.1674-0904.2021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; WANG Dengfeng, ZHANG Guonan, SHI Yu, et al. A clinical analysis of 11 cases of gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma[J]. Journal of Cancer Control and Treatment, 2021, 34(5): 431-437. 10.3969/j.issn.1674-0904.2021.05.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. 刘鹏飞, 向阳. 宫颈微偏腺癌诊治进展[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2016, 32(4): 372-375. 10.7504/fk2016030119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; LIU Pengfei, XIANG Yang. Progress in diagnosis and treatment of cervical micrometastasis adenocarcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2016, 32(4): 372-375. 10.7504/fk2016030119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kojima A, Mikami Y, Sudo T, et al. Gastric morphology and immunophenotype predict poor outcome in mucinous adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2007, 31(5): 664-672. 10.1097/01.pas.0000213434.91868.b0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Fulgione C, Raffone A, Travaglino A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of HIK1083 and MUC6 as immunohistochemical markers of endocervical gastric-type adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Pathol Res Pract, 2023, 241: 154261. 10.1016/j.prp.2022.154261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Carleton C, Hoang L, Sah S, et al. A detailed immunohistochemical analysis of a large series of cervical and vaginal gastric-type adenocarcinomas[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2016, 40(5): 636-644. 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Turashvili G, Morency EG, Kracun M, et al. Morphologic features of gastric-type cervical adenocarcinoma in small surgical and cytology specimens[J]. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 2019, 38(3): 263-275. 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Nishio S, Matsuo K, Nasu H, et al. Analysis of postoperative adjuvant therapy in 102 patients with gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A multi-institutional study[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2022, 48(9): 2039-2044. 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Lu BJ, Shi HY, Shao Y, et al. Ovarian metastasis by gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma: a clinicopathologic description of 12 cases[J]. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 2022, 41(4): 356-365. 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. 彭巧华, 吕卫国. 2022年第1版《NCCN子宫颈癌临床实践指南》解读[J]. 实用肿瘤杂志, 2022, 37(3): 205-214. 10.13267/j.cnki.syzlzz.2022.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; PENG Qiaohua, Weiguo LÜ. Interpretation of NCCN guidelines for cervical cancer, version 1.2022[J]. Journal of Practical Oncology, 2022, 37(3): 205-214. 10.13267/j.cnki.syzlzz.2022.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Takeuchi S. Biology and treatment of cervical adenocarcinoma[J]. Chin J Cancer Res, 2016, 28(2): 254-262. 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2016.02.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Kuruma A, Kodama M, Hori Y, et al. Gastric-type adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix associated with poor response to definitive radiotherapy[J]. Cancers, 2022, 15(1): 170. 10.3390/cancers15010170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Kojima A, Shimada M, Mikami Y, et al. Chemoresistance of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a study of the Sankai gynecology study group[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2018, 28(1): 99-106. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences are provided here courtesy of Central South University

RESOURCES