A retrospective clinical analysis of 11 cases of PEComa from different sites

Abstract

Abstract Purpose The objective of this paper is to offer a thorough examination of the clinical presentations, etiology, and treatment strategies associated with perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas). Methods This retrospective study examined the comprehensive archival data of PEComa cases diagnosed at Beijing Hospital from 2015 to 2023. The pathology slides of all patients were thoroughly reassessed by two experienced pathologists. A thorough retrospective analysis was undertaken, incorporating clinicopathological data including gender, age at diagnosis, initial clinical manifestations, signs, disease onset site, tumor markers, imaging findings, therapeutic modalities, pathological features, immunohistochemical profiles, treatment responses, and prognostic indicators. Patients were evaluated for disease severity according to established pathological classification criteria and were followed up until the designated analysis cut-off date. In instances where patients were unable to be monitored on-site, they were contacted via telephone for postoperative follow-up inquiries. Results This study included 11 patients with ages ranging from 17 to 66 years old, presenting with the disease in multiple anatomical sites, including the retroperitoneum (2/11), liver (4/11), kidney (4/11), lung (1/11), and broad ligament of the uterus (1/11). Most patients presented with non-specific clinical symptoms and were subsequently diagnosed with space-occupying lesions upon physical examination. The tumor demonstrated progressive growth and enlargement, which could result in compression of neighboring organs. Preoperative imaging alone is insufficient for a definitive diagnosis of PEComa, but MRI can provide an initial evaluation of the tumor’s potential malignancy. Molecular marker testing specific to PEComa, such as HMB-45 (90.0%), SMA (81.8%), Melan-A (90.9%), vimentin (90.9%), and Desmin (36.3%), was conducted on all patients. No adjuvant therapies were administered postoperatively. Upon analysis, no instances of relapse at the primary site or the development of new tumors at other sites were observed. Regular imaging reviews of three patients with malignant PEComa post-surgery showed no evidence of recurrence. Conclusions The clinical presentation, tumor biomarkers, and imaging characteristics of PEComa lack specificity, necessitating dependence on pathology and immunohistochemistry for precise diagnosis. The mainstay of treatment consists of surgical resection, with patients typically experiencing a favorable prognosis.