SarcomaVolume 2012 (2012), Article ID 541626, 12 pagesdoi:10.1155/2012/541626

Review Article

“Malignant” Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Neoplasm: Risk Stratification and Treatment Strategies

Jonathan S. Bleeker,¹ J. Fernando Quevedo,¹ and Andrew L. Folpe²

¹Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA²Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

Received 2 December 2011; Accepted 8 February 2012

Academic Editor: R. Pollock

Copyright © 2012 Jonathan S. Bleeker 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.

Abstract.

Purpose. Perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas) are a rare collection of tumors characterized by a myomelanocytic phenotype, and PEComas occurring in “nonclassic” anatomic distributions are known as perivascular epithelioid cell tumor not otherwise specified (PEComa-NOS). This review aims to compile and analyze cases of PEComa-NOS in an effort to better define their natural history. Design. We evaluated all 234 cases of PEComa-NOS reported in the English literature, extracting information regarding diagnostic features, treatment approaches, and outcomes. Multivariate analysis of a number of variables evaluable on pathologic review was performed to refine preexisting risk stratification criteria. Outcomes for patients receiving nonsurgical treatment are also reported. Results. Primary tumor size ≥5 cm () and a high (1/50 HPF) mitotic rate () were the only factors significantly associated with recurrence following surgical resection. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation therapy have shown little benefit in treating PEComa-NOS; mTOR inhibition is emerging as a treatment option. Conclusion. Progress has been made in understanding the natural history and molecular biology of PEComa-NOS. This review further clarifies risk of recurrence in this disease, allowing clinicians to better risk stratify patients. Further work should focus on applying this knowledge to making treatment decisions for patients with this disease.

1. Introduction

Perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas) are a collection of rare tumors defined by the World Health Organization as “mesenchymal tumors composed of histologically and immunohistochemically distinctive perivascular epithelioid cells” [1]. In 1991, Pea et al. described the presence of a unique cell with “prominent cytoplasmic borders and clear to granular, eosinophilic cytoplasm” in a perivascular distribution in both angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney and clear cell sugar tumor (CCST) of the lung [2]. The same group coined the term “perivascular epithelioid cell” (PEC) for these cells in 1992 and proposed the presence of this distinctive cell, distinguished in part by strong HMB-45 positivity, as a common link between a number of rare disorders in disparate locations, including AML, CCST, and lymphangiomyomatosis (LAM) of the lung [3]. Despite much controversy regarding the significance of PECs [4], including the fact that no normal counterpart of the PEC is known, further descriptions of tumors in multiple anatomic locations composed primarily of these cells has led to them being designated “PEComas” [5]. PEComas are notable for a myomelanocytic phenotype, with nearly all being immunoreactive for both melanocytic (HMB-45 and/or melan-A) and smooth muscle (actin and/or desmin) markers. The PEComa family of tumors is now felt to be comprised of AML, CCST, LAM, and less well-characterized PEComas of a variety of other anatomic origins, for which the term “perivascular epithelioid cell tumor not otherwise specified” (PEComa-NOS) has been proposed [6].

PEComa-NOS have been described in a variety of anatomic locations, including the colon [8, 9], pancreas [5, 10], retroperitoneum [11, 12], heart [13, 14], adrenal gland [15], breast [16], eye [17], biliary tract [18], bone [19], urinary bladder [20, 21], skull base [22], liver [23–25], uterus [26], cervix [27], skin [28], nasopharynx [29, 30], upper airway [31], and soft tissues [32, 33]. The majority of the published literature regarding PEComa-NOS is in the form of case reports and series, with a focus on the presentation and distinguishing pathologic features of the disease. In these reports, PEComa-NOS has been given a variety of titles, including “clear cell sugar tumor,” “primary extrapulmonary sugar tumor,” “clear cell myomelanocytic tumor,” and “monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipoma.” This review aims to compile data from the available literature on PEComa-NOS with a focus on risk stratification and treatment strategies which have been employed in various stages of the disease. Given improving recognition of PEComa-NOS and an increasing number of reported cases, this review aims to build on previously established risk stratification criteria to improve management of patients with this rare disorder.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

Cases included in this analysis were retrieved via search of the PubMed database (United States Library of Medicine) for English-language publications prior to December 1, 2010. Search terms included “PEComa,” “perivascular epithelioid cell,” “perivascular epithelioid cell tumor,” “clear cell sugar tumor,” “primary extrapulmonary sugar tumor,” “clear cell myomelanocytic tumor,” and “monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipoma.” Cases of AML, LAM, and CCST occurring in their typical anatomic location were not included in this analysis. Cases described as “monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipomas” which occurred outside the kidney were considered PEComa-NOS; “typical” AML cases not having monotypic epithelioid features were not included in this analysis regardless of anatomic location. Cases which were not considered PEComa-NOS by the primary authors, but which have subsequently been included in case series based on pathologic findings [4], were also included in this analysis. One difficulty in defining the natural history of PEComa-NOS is the large number of patients who had undergone resection of what was felt to be a different entity a number of years earlier and subsequently presented with PEComa. Unless the initial pathology was reviewed and felt to be consistent with primary PEComa-NOS, cases such as this were considered as new cases and not evidence of recurrence.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

A total of 234 cases in a total of 116 reports were retrieved using the above criteria and reviewed to obtain demographic information, pathologic details regarding the primary tumor and outcome data. Statistical evaluation for risk of recurrence after surgical resection was performed utilizing JMP v. 9.0.1 (Cary, NC). Univariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Variables deemed significant were then analyzed for correlation; when two variables were highly correlated, the variable with the most significant -value was included in the multivariate analysis, which was performed using forward stepwise multiple logistic regression. Multivariate analysis was performed utilized all noncorrelated variables; given the large number of cases with missing data points, multivariate analysis was deemed valid only if there were at least 10 events for each variable included in the Cox proportional hazard analysis. The level of significance was set at .

3. Results

3.1. Review of Reported Cases

Patients ranged in age from 3 to 97 years (median 43 years) and 79% of patients were female (186/234). When gender-specific locations (prostate, uterus) were excluded, the strong female predominance persisted, with 73% (125/172) of cases occurring in females. The uterus was the most common anatomic site of origin, comprising 20% (47) of cases. Other common sites of origin included the skin (22 cases), liver/falciform ligament (20 cases), retroperitoneum (18 cases), and colon/rectum (16 cases). Tumor size in cases where such information was reported ranged from 0.5–30 cm (mean 6.8 cm). Lymph node involvement was noted in 5 cases, and distant metastatic disease was present at diagnosis in 6.8% (16/234) of cases. Local disease was deemed unresectable in 2 additional cases. The most common location for distant metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis was the lung (5 cases) followed by bone (4 cases), with ovarian, liver, adrenal, and peritoneal metastatic disease also reported.

Some form of followup was available in 81% (189/234) of cases, with the duration of followup ranging from 1 month to >15 years. Information regarding treatment was available in 95% of cases (222/234); the degree of followup and treatment information varied widely. A total of 20 patients were dead of disease at the time of reporting, comprising 10.6% of cases with followup information. Of these 20, 7 patients presented with metastatic or unresectable disease and the other 13 had recurrence after surgical resection.

3.2. Risk Stratification and Outcomes

Folpe et al. [7] identified a number of “high-risk” histopathologic features and integrated them into a set of criteria to risk stratify PEComas into “malignant,” “uncertain malignant potential,” and “benign” categories (Table 1). All cases included in this review were analyzed for presence of these factors and risk stratified based on these criteria. Given the fact that not all cases contained complete reporting on all these high-risk features, risk status was only able to be conclusively determined in 40% (93/234) of cases. The large majority of cases which could be definitively stratified using the criteria (87/93; 94%) were classified as “malignant,” 6 were classified as “benign,” and none were definitively classified as “uncertain malignant potential,” although 30 cases with partial reporting of high-risk features met at least this level of risk based on size alone. Of the 87 cases deemed “malignant,” 14 had evidence of distant metastases or unresectable disease at diagnosis. Surgical resection of metastatic disease was felt to be complete in 3 of these 14 cases in addition to 68 cases without metastatic disease where the disease was felt to be completely surgically resected.

Table 1: Proposed classification of PEComas (adapted from Folpe et al. [7]).

High risk features
Risk category

(1) Size >5 cm (2) Infiltrative growth pattern (3) High nuclear grade and cellularity (4) Mitotic Rate >1/50 HPF (5) Necrosis (6) Vascular invasion
“Benign” <2 high risk features and size < 5 cm

“Uncertain malignant potential” Size ≥5 cm with no other high risk features OR nuclear pleomorphism/multinucleated giant cells only

“Malignant” 2 or more high risk features

In cases with reported followup, a total of 56 cases (29.6%; 56/189) showed evidence of “malignant behavior,” defined as metastatic or unresectable disease at diagnosis or recurrence after initial surgical resection. Eighteen of these 56 cases presented with metastatic/unresectable disease and 38 had recurrence following what was felt to be complete initial surgical resection. Of the 38 cases of recurrence, 31 were able to be fully categorized using the Folpe criteria, and all 31 fell into the “malignant” subgroup. No cases of malignant behavior were noted in patients in the “benign” or “uncertain malignant behavior” subgroups, although risk stratification was, as mentioned, incomplete for 7 cases. Only 2 cases of recurrence occurred in patients with a primary tumor <5 cm, and both of these cases demonstrated at least one other high risk feature. The rate of “aggressive behavior,” defined as metastatic or recurrent disease, in cases with followup classified as “malignant” by the Folpe criteria was 51% (39/76), less than the 71% originally reported by Folpe et al. [7].

In an effort to build on the Folpe criteria for risk stratification focusing on risk of recurrence after what was felt to be complete surgical resection, Cox proportional hazard testing was performed for a number of variables, including those comprising the Folpe criteria. Results of the univariate analysis are shown in Table 2. Essentially, all factors except infiltration included in the Folpe criteria were significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrence after surgical resection. Increasing age was also significantly associated with recurrence, and cutaneous primary tumors were associated with a lower recurrence rate; in fact, no cases of cutaneous PEComa-NOS recurred after surgical resection.

Table 2: Univariate analysis of clinical and histologic factors related to PEComa-NOS recurrence.

Variable
Recurrence rate
Risk ratio
95% CI
-value

Age (continuous variable)

1.02
1.01–1.04
0.01

Size

    < 5 cm
6/92 (6.5%)
1

    ≥ 5 cm
32/84 (38.1%)
10.74
3.22–66.47
<0.001

Sex

    Male
10/37 (27.0%)
1

    Female
28/134 (20.9%)
0.85
0.39–2.13
0.70

Mitotic rate

    Low
7/93 (7.5%)
1

    High (>1/50 HPF)
24/44 (54.5%)
10.0
4.00–30.30
<0.001

Grade

    Grade 1-2
9/51 (17.6%)
1

    Grade 3
8/19 (42.1%)
3.35
1.17–9.42
0.03

Necrosis

    Absent
8/79 (10.1%)
1

    Present
25/53 (47.2%)
7.19
3.18–18.38
<0.001

Vascular invasion

    Absent
11/52 (21.2%)
1

    Present
9/17 (52.9%)
3.22
1.19–8.49
0.02

Infiltration

    Absent
5/24 (20.8%)
1

    Present
7/38 (18.4%)
1.14
0.34–4.41
0.84

Primary location (versus all other sites)

    GYN
12/42 (28.6%)
1.37
0.62–2.83
0.42

    GI
4/22 (18.2%)
1.69
0.49–4.51
0.24

Skin
0/20 (0%)
6.2 × 10-7
NC
0.002

    Liver/Falciform ligament
2/18 (11.1%)
0.34
0.05–1.14
0.09

    Retroperitoneal
4/12 (33.3%)
1.32
0.39–3.40
0.61

All variables significant in the univariate analysis were then analyzed for correlation in terms of impact on risk of recurrence. Factors that were significantly correlated included high mitotic rate and high grade (Grade 3); presence of vascular invasion and necrosis were also significantly correlated. Given these correlations, only the correlated variable with the most significant -value on univariate analysis (high mitotic rate, necrosis) was included in the multivariate analysis, which was performed utilizing a stepwise multiple logistic regression. The results of the multivariate analysis are presented in Table 3. Only size >5 cm and high mitotic rate were significantly associated with recurrence, although the number of events present in the analysis was too small to consider this a valid estimate of risk. Thus, these two variables were analyzed separately, and they both retained a significant association with recurrence after surgical resection: size ≥5 cm (hazard ratio: 4.30, 95% CI 1.23–27.14, ) and high mitotic rate (hazard ratio: 7.56, 95% CI 2.97–23.19, ). All other variables included in the initial multivariate analysis were analyzed sequentially with these two factors; in no analysis were any of the other factors significantly associated with recurrence or did the two significant risk factors lose their association.

Table 3: Multivariate analysis of clinical and histologic factors related to PEComa-NOS recurrence.

Variable
Risk ratio
95% CI
-value

(a) All nonconcordant variables
Age
1.91
0.15–21.5
0.61

Skin primary
0.0009
0-NC
0.93

    Number of events: 24     
Size >5 cm
6.16
1.04–117.4
0.04

    Number of censorings: 83
High mitotic rate (>1/50 HPF)
6.96
2.20–26.7
<0.01

    Total number: 107
Necrosis
1.55
0.56–4.70
0.41

(b) Variables significant on multivariate analysis
Size > 5cm
4.30
1.23–27.2
0.02

    Number of events: 25
High mitotic rate (>1/50 HPF)
7.57
2.96–23.2
<0.01

    Number of censorings: 93

    Total number: 118

Utilizing these two significant risk factors for recurrence, a revised set of risk stratification criteria were applied to the cases reviewed, with cases with a primary tumor <5 cm in size and without a high mitotic rate defined as “benign,” those with one of these features as “uncertain malignant potential,” and those with a primary tumor ≥5 cm in size and a high mitotic rate as “malignant.” These criteria were compared with the previously described Folpe criteria to determine predictive accuracy in this large series of cases. Only cases where all components of the applied risk stratification criteria were available were included in the analysis in an effort to avoid underestimating risk of recurrence in patients missing data; the results of this analysis are in Table 4.

Table 4: Comparison of original and revised Folpe criteria in risk stratification.

Risk category
Recurrence following resection

Benign
0/4 (0%)
1/46 (2.2%)

Uncertain

Malignant
No cases
3/22 (13.6%)

Potential

Malignant
31/68 (45.5%)
21/30 (70%)

3.3. Treatment Approaches

222/234 cases reported some details of treatment; of these, 216 underwent either excisional biopsy or surgical resection of the primary tumor. In cases where surgery was not attempted, the disease was metastatic at presentation or the primary lesion was felt to be unresectable. A minority of patients (41/234; 18%) underwent therapy in addition to surgery, as summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Reported cases of non-surgical treatment of PEComa-NOS.

Reference/year
Age/Sex
Location
Size (cm)
Folpe cat.
Management
Outcome
Treatment details

Neoadjuvant cases

Folpe et al. [7]
49 F
Shoulder
N/A
Malignant
NA CT, resection
NED at 11 mo
Ifos/Adria—residual dz at resection

Jeon and Sung [34] and Jeon and Yi [35]
9 F
Uterus
6.5
Malignant
NA CT, resection, Adj CT
NED at 16 mo; ALL diagnosed at 16 mo
Vincr/Ifos/Adria—2 NA cycles, 6 adj cycles concurrent with 45 Gy.

Ong et al. [36]
8 F
Vagina
2
Unknown
NA CT, resection
NED at 6 mo
Ifos/Vincr/Actino D x3—prog

Osei et al. [37]
49 F
UE soft tissue
5.3
Malignant
Sequential NA CT then RT followed by resection
Single lung metastasis at 14 mo—resected
Ifos/Adria x6—80% reduction, then 50 Gy RT—prog

Weinreb et al. [38]
68 M
Thigh
7.8
Malignant
NA RT, resection
NED at 11 mo

Yamashita et al. [39]
39 F
Tibia
6.5
Malignant
NA RT, resection
NED at 34 mo

Adjuvant Cases

Bosincu et al. [40]
48 F
Uterus
7
Malignant
Resection, Adj HT
NED at 36 mo
Tamoxifen

Chen et al. [41]
16 F
Abdominal
27
Malignant
Resection, Adj CT
Recurrence at 2 mo; no further follow-up
(+) LN at surgery

Fink et al. [42]
51 F
Broad Lig
17
Unknown
Resection, Adj RT
NED at 15 mo
50.4 Gy

Folpe et al. [43]
29 M
Falciform Lig
20
Malignant
Resection, Adj RT
Lung metastases at 3 mo; dead of other causes at 1 yr

Folpe et al. [43]
10 F
Falciform Lig
5
Unknown
Resection, Adj CT
Lost to follow-up
Vincr, Actino D, Cyclophos

Folpe et al. [7]
71 M
Forearm
9
Malignant
Resection, Adj RT
NED at 10 mo

Folpe et al. [7]
48 F
Cervix
2
Unknown
Resection, Adj RT
NED at 21 mo

Folpe et al. [7]
77 F
Neck
2.6
Unknown
Resection, Adj RT
NED at 6 mo

Folpe et al. [7]
56 F
Uterus
9
Malignant
Resection, Adj CT and RT
Lung and bony metastases at 11 mo; alive at 11 mo

Folpe et al. [7]
59 F
Uterus
14.5
Malignant
Resection, Adj CT
Liver and lung metastases at 30 mo; alive at 30 mo

Folpe et al. [7]
46 F
Mesentery
12
Malignant
Resection, Adj CT
Intra-abdominal and liver metastases at 22 mo; DOD at 27 mo
“Multiple” cycles of adjuvant CT

Folpe et al. [7]
36 F
Uterus
N/A
Malignant
Resection, Adj CT
Lung metastases at 12 mo, liver metastases at 36 mo; DOD at 39 mo

Hornick and Fletcher [11]
50 F
Pelvis
13
Malignant
Resection, Adj RT
Lung, liver, abdominal wall metastases at 39 mo, alive at 46 mo

Pan et al. [20]
46 M
Prostate
8.5
Malignant
Resection, Adj RT
Pulmonary metasases at 3 yrs, DOD at 4 yrs
Cis/Adria x6 cycles

Parfitt et al. [44]
48 M
Bladder
3
Unknown
Resection, Adj IT
NED at 48 mo
IFN-α

Ryan et al. [45]
15 F
Rectum
3.7
Malignant
Resection, Adj CT
NED at 9 mo
(+) LN at surgery; Ifos/Adria

Silva et al. [4]
76 F
Uterus
N/A
Malignant
Resection, Adj RT
NED at 8 mo

Subbiah et al. [46]
58 F
Retroperitoneal
17
Unknown
Resection, Adj CT
Liver metastases at 2 yrs, resected with subsequent liver and lung metastases
2 cycles adj Adria; RT/adria after resection of liver recurrence; temsirolimus/bortezomib at 2nd recurrence—prog

Vang and Kempson [47]
75 F
Uterus
5
Unknown
Resection, Adj RT
NED at 30 mo

Metastatic/Recurrent Cases

Bonetti et al. [48]
19 F
Uterus
5.5
Malignant
Subtotal resection of primary, CT followed by RT
Local recurrence at 10 mo, diffuse metastatic disease at 18 mo

Léon et al. [49]
76 F
Abdominal
15
Malignant
RT to sacral recurrence
Progressive metastatic disease
13 Gy RT to sacrum

Léon et al. [49]
38 F
Retroperitoneal
N/A
Malignant
CRT
DOD at 20 mo
RT/Thal

Fukunaga et al. [50]
40 F
Uterus
30
Malignant
Debulking surgery, CRT
DOD at 17 mo
Mulitple omental metastases at initial surgery

Greene et al. [51]
79 F
Uterus
13
Malignant
Debulking of pelvic recurrence, CT
DOD at “several” mo
Paclitaxel x1 cycle

Italiano et al. [52]
55 F
Uterus
N/A
Unknown
Resection of recurrence, CT, CRT following 2nd recurrence, mTOR following progression
Progressive metastatic disease; alive at 16 mo following recurrence
Ifos/Adria, RT+etop, Temsirolimus, Gem

Italiano et al. [52]
69 F
Uterus
N/A
Unknown
mTOR, resection of solitary lung metastasis
NED at 9 mo
Temsirolimus; response allowed surgical resection

Peng et al. [53]
47 M
Pelvis
12
Malignant
Subtotal resection of primary, CT
DOD at 9 mo
Ifos/Epi x2—prog; Adria/Oxali/Thal x 2—prog; Nada, Dacarb x2—prog

Silva et al. [4]
47 F
Uterus
N/A
Malignant
Resection of primary; RT followed by CT
DOD at 30 mo
Lung metastases at diagnosis; Adria/Cis x8 cycles

Silva et al. [4]
73 F
Uterus
N/A
Malignant
Resection of primary; CT
DOD at 9 mo
Paclitaxel x6 cycles

Silva et al. [4]
43 F
Uterus
N/A
Malignant
Resection of primary; CT
Alive with progressive disease at 6 mo
Ifos/Adria x5 cycles

Wagner et al. [54]
70 M
Kidney
9
Unknown
TKI, mTOR inhibitor, resection of recurrence
40% reduction in size of isolated recurrence, NED after resection
Sunitinib, sirolimus

Wagner et al. [54]
65 M
Retroperitoneal
20
Malignant
Resection of recurrences, mTOR inhibitor
“Near complete dissapperance” of multifocal disease at 12 mo, alive at 16 mo following recurrence
Sirolimus

Wagner et al. [54]
61 F
Cervix
9
Malignant
mTOR inhibitor
Initial response, DOD at 8 mo
Sirolimus

Yamashita et al. [39]
35 M
Vertebral
1.8
Malignant
CRT
Bone metastases at 9 mo, alive at 12 mo
Pelvic mets—no tx details

Yamashita et al. [39]
42 F
Uterus
15
Malignant
Resection of humeral recurrence, CT
DOD at 10 mo with diffuse metastases

Legend: NA: Neoadjuvant, Adj: Adjuvant, CT: Chemotherapy, RT: Radiation therapy, IT: Immunotherapy, HT: Hormonal therapy, NED: No evidence of disease, DOD: Dead of disease, Ifos: Ifosfamide, Adria: Doxorubicin, Vincr: Vincristine, Actino D: Actinomycin D, CTX: Cyclophosphamide, Cis: Cisplatin, Thal: Thalidomide, Epi: Epirubicin, Oxali: Oxaliplatin, Nada: Nadplatin, Dacarb: Dacarbazine, Etop: Etoposide, Gem: Gemcitabine, TKI: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

3.3.1. Neoadjuvant Therapy

Six patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy; 3 were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, 2 with radiation alone, and 1 with chemotherapy followed by radiation. The clinical and pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in these cases was mixed. Jeon et al. [34] described a uterine PEComa in a 9-year-old girl treated with 2 cycles of neoadjuvant vincristine, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin leading to a 10% reduction in tumor size on imaging. She subsequently underwent surgical resection; no significant treatment effect was noted on the pathology specimen. This was followed by concurrent chemoradiation resulting in no evidence of disease 17 months following resection, although she did develop acute lymphoblastic leukemia felt to be secondary to exposure to anthracyclines [35]. The most robust response to neoadjuvant therapy was described by Osei et al.[37], where 6 cycles of doxorubicin and ifosfamide led to an 80% decrease in the size of an upper extremity soft tissue PEComa. This was followed by neoadjuvant radiation, during which the tumor progressed. At the time of resection, the tumor showed 20% necrosis. In other cases utilizing neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, progression on therapy [36] and presence of residual viable tumor [7] have been noted. In cases where neoadjuvant radiotherapy was utilized [38, 39], little clinical or pathologic information was provided to attest to efficacy. Five of these 6 cases were able to be classified as “malignant” using the Folpe criteria. The one patient who suffered recurrence was the only patient to have a significant response to neoadjuvant therapy, as reported by Osei et al. [37].

3.3.2. Adjuvant Therapy

A total of 19 patients received adjuvant therapy, with 7 receiving systemic chemotherapy, 8 undergoing radiotherapy, and 2 receiving concurrent chemoradiation; hormonal therapy (tamoxifen) and immunotherapy (Interferon-alpha) were both utilized in one case. Information was available to risk stratify 12 of these 19 cases; all 12 were “malignant” utilizing the Folpe criteria. The other cases were unable to be definitively classified, but 3 of the seven were at least of “uncertain malignant potential” due to size alone.

Information regarding adjuvant chemotherapy regimens was available in 5 reports; the majority of regimens utilized an anthracycline backbone. Followup was available for 6 of the 7 patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy alone; 5 of these 6 patients had recurrent disease at a median of 21 months of followup (range 2–36 months). Three of these patients were dead at the time of reporting; two of 8 patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy experienced recurrence.

3.3.3. Recurrent/Metastatic Disease

As mentioned above, 38 patients with reported followup had evidence of recurrence; time to discovery of recurrence ranged from 1–180 months (median 23 months). Recurrence patterns were diverse, but the most common sites of recurrence were local (15 cases) and in the lungs (15 cases). Liver, CNS, and bone metastases were also frequent, with single reports of metastasis to the pancreas [55], heart [52], and bladder [55].

Surgical resection of isolated metastatic disease has been an effective approach in some cases, as a number of patients were rendered disease-free with surgical resection alone [56, 57]; multiple patients required serial resections for recurrent metastases [39, 55]. Only 7 patients received nonsurgical therapy following recurrence, with 3 receiving chemotherapy (paclitaxel [51], carboplatin, and epirubicin [11]), 1 undergoing radiation to a bony metastasis [49], and 3 recently reported cases treated with an mTOR inhibitor [52, 54]. Only one of these patients was deceased at the time of reporting; the rest were alive with disease.

A total of 18 patients presented with either metastatic disease not amenable to resection (16 cases) or unresectable disease without evidence of distant metastases (2 cases). Of these 18 patients, 10 underwent nonsurgical therapy, with 3 receiving chemotherapy, 5 undergoing combined chemoradiation, and 2 receiving an mTOR inhibitor. Followup was available for 13 of these 18 patients; with 7 of the 13 dead of disease at a median of 16 months (range 4–30 months).

4. Discussion

4.1. Clinical Features

The results of this review largely corroborate the results of other large case series investigating PEComas regarding the clinical features of the disease. PEComas can occur at the extremes of age, but the median age of 43 years in this review is consistent with prior series. A strong female predominance has been a consistent finding in PEComa series, and this review confirms that finding, although the approximately 4 : 1 female-to-male ratio is slightly less than that noted in earlier series [7, 58] One potential reason for this is an increase in the number of extragynecologic PEComas being recognized, as only 24% (56) of the cases reviewed here were gynecologic in origin as compared to approximately 40% in earlier series [7, 59]. Increased recognition of the PEComa family of tumors has likely led to improved characterization of these tumors in unusual locations, whereas they may have been mischaracterized as melanoma or soft tissue sarcoma in the past.

4.2. Risk Stratification

Folpe et al. [7] established criteria for determining malignant potential of PEComas in 2005 (Table 1). These criteria have been applied in multiple subsequently reported cases, although the role of these criteria in guiding management remains unclear. Information to allow for complete application of these criteria was available in only 40% of reviewed cases, making drawing conclusions from this data difficult. However, the available data do allow for further evaluation of the criteria in predicting recurrence following what is felt to be complete resection of a PEComa-NOS. Of the 38 cases of recurrence in this review, 31 (82%) were classified as malignant using these criteria. Information required for complete risk stratification was incomplete in the remaining seven patients with reported recurrence, but 3 of these 7 cases were categorized as having “uncertain malignant potential” due to size ≥5 cm alone. With full reporting of all high-risk criteria, these cases may have been recategorized into the “malignant” group. No documented recurrence occurred in any patient with a primary tumor <5 cm in greatest diameter without an additional high risk feature. These findings provide support for the benign nature of PEComa-NOS which are <5 cm in size without any other high-risk features as defined by the Folpe criteria.

In evaluating the multivariate analysis and revised risk stratification criteria utilizing only size ≥5 cm and high mitotic rate as contributing risk factors, it is difficult to draw significant conclusions given the lack of reporting of these variables in a number of cases. In evaluable patients, presence of both of these factors predicted a higher risk of recurrence following surgical resection, while the absence of either of these high risk features appears to be associated with a very small risk of recurrence, and thus utilizing these two factors as the primary determinants of risk may simplify the risk stratification and counseling process in the postoperative setting. In practical terms, no risk stratification schema has been uniformly applied to guide decisions regarding adjuvant therapy, and continuing work will need to be done evaluating all potential adverse risk factors reported here as well as others yet to be described. Uniform reporting of all histologic features utilized in the Folpe criteria will no doubt be beneficial in efforts to further clarify such risk stratification criteria, as only 40% patients in this review were truly evaluable given incomplete reporting of these variables. Given this fact, applicability of the risk stratification we propose based on this data is limited; future series with more complete reporting will allow for improved statistical analysis and may lead to a different set of risk stratification criteria.

4.3. Treatment Approaches

This review demonstrates the wide variety of treatment approaches utilized in PEComa-NOS, as well as the lack of consensus regarding treatment strategies. No treatment approach has been shown to be consistently effective in this disease, although such a conclusion is certainly premature given the numbers of patients who have received treatment and the lack of randomized data available. One significant issue in the nonsurgical treatment of PEComa is that many cases are not diagnosed conclusively as PEComa until after surgical resection, limiting available treatment approaches.

Neoadjuvant treatment has been utilized in a small number of cases with only one report of a robust objective response to therapy; other cases utilizing neoadjuvant therapy report either progression or minimal evidence of efficacy in the resected tumor. The role of adjuvant therapy for PEComa-NOS is also unclear, and this series does little to change that. When reported, chemotherapy regimens utilized were typically similar to those used in soft tissue sarcomas with an anthracycline backbone, but many different variations were reported. The rate of recurrence (45%) and death from disease (15%) are much higher in this group than the series as a whole. This phenomenon has been noted in at least one other review of gynecologic PEComas [60], where receipt of postoperative therapy was associated with an increased rate of recurrence. No deaths appeared to be directly attributable to therapy, and it is most likely that the increased rates of recurrence and death in this group are due to selection of patients with extremely high-risk disease for adjuvant therapy as opposed to intrinsic harm from the treatment.

In the metastatic setting, systemic chemotherapy has shown little efficacy, as there were no objective responses reported with the use of chemotherapy in this review. The unpredictability of the natural history of PEComa-NOS, even in the metastatic setting, is also illustrated by the number of patients rendered NED by surgical resection of oligometastatic disease as well as reports of survival for up to one year without progression of disease in the absence of any therapy [61].

Targeted therapies, most notably mTOR inhibitors, have been a recent development in the treatment strategy of all members of the PEComa family, including PEComa-NOS. This interest initially arose from the observation that patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) have a higher rate of LAM and AML than the general population [62, 63]. TSC is an autosomal dominant genetic disease due to loss of either the TSC1 (9p34) or TSC2 (16p13.3) genes; a number of different mutations in either of these genes leads to the TSC phenotype [64, 65]. LAM is present in 25–35% of female patients with TSC [62, 66], 50–80% of adults with TSC have renal AMLs [63, 67, 68], and the two diseases are frequently both present in those with TSC [63]. Given this link between TSC, LAM, and AML, the role of TSC1/TSC2 mutations in the pathogenesis of these diseases has been vigorously investigated [69].

Germline loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at the TSC2 locus has been demonstrated in TSC-associated AML [70–72] and LAM [73]; LOH at the TSC1 locus has been less frequently described. TSC1 and TSC2 code for separate proteins which, after interaction, regulate cell proliferation via the mTOR pathway [74]. Complete loss of either TSC1 or TSC2 due to a second hit to either TSC locus leads to a dysfunctional TSC1-TSC2 complex and unchecked cell proliferation through unregulated mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) activation [75] and impaired mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2 (mTORC2) activation [76]. Given the role of the mTOR pathway in these disorders, mTOR inhibition has been viewed with great enthusiasm as a potential treatment modality, and this enthusiasm has been matched by meaningful responses to mTOR inhibition in both AML and LAM [41, 77, 78].

The proportion of patients with PEComa-NOS and TSC is not as large as that linking TSC and LAM or AML [7], but genetic analysis of multiple PEComa-NOS specimens have demonstrated activation of the mTOR pathway [79, 80], indicating potential benefit for mTOR inhibition in PEComa-NOS. To date, the reported experience utilizing mTOR inhibition in PEComa-NOS is limited to a handful of case reports and series [46, 52, 54]. These series, however, have been promising in that significant responses [52], including at least one long-term response (16 months)[54], have been reported. Responses have not been uniform, however [46], and further clinical trial data must be accumulated before defining the role of mTOR inhibition in metastatic or recurrent PEComa-NOS. Clinical trials evaluating mTOR inhibitors in LAM and AML are currently accruing; it is unlikely given their rarity that PEComa-NOS treatment will be evaluated separately in a randomized fashion, so use of mTOR inhibitors in this setting will likely be in the setting of Phase I trials and/or off-label based on results of the above-mentioned trials in AML and LAM.

Given the available data in the literature, no definitive treatment strategy can be unequivocally recommended at this time. In the opinion of the authors, neoadjuvant therapy has its only role with a goal of conversion of unresectable disease to resectable, although little data supports the efficacy of such an approach. Adjuvant therapy may be of benefit in patients at high risk of recurrence, but given only approximately half of patients with disease classified as malignant by Folpe criteria will experience recurrence following resection, exposing patients to the risk of systemic chemotherapy without a known benefit is a major concern. Regardless of the postoperative strategy employed, long-term surveillance should be at its core, as multiple recurrences have been reported >5 years after surgical resection [52, 57, 81, 82]. Early detection of recurrence may allow for surgical resection of solitary lesions or oligometastatic disease, which has been effective in long term control of disease in a number of reported cases. Given the lack of benefit of traditional cytotoxic therapy in the metastatic setting, mTOR inhibition in the setting of a clinical trial should be strongly considered in any patient with recurrent or metastatic disease. This approach is as yet unproven in the adjuvant setting or following resection of metastatic disease, but mTOR inhibition is emerging as an attractive treatment option as more information on its use in LAM and AML returns.

5. Conclusion

PEComa-NOS remains a rare, but increasingly recognized entity and much progress has been made in unraveling the molecular mechanisms underlying this disease and other members of the PEComa family. Evaluation of risk of aggressive behavior remains an imprecise undertaking given the diverse array of clinical behavior noted in the literature, but this analysis suggests that tumor size and high mitotic rate are the best predictors of recurrence after surgical resection. The Folpe criteria continue to have utility, especially in helping to categorize lesions as having low malignant potential. This review better defines the natural history of PEComa-NOS of various primary sites and outlines the importance of long-term surveillance, given a number of cases of late recurrence. Ideal treatment strategies remain undefined, but an emerging role for mTOR inhibitors raises enthusiasm in the treatment of these rare tumors. Clinicians should be aware of this new treatment paradigm and work to ensure clinical trials to further define the role of mTOR inhibitors are embraced.

Financial Support

The authors have no relevant financial interests to report.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NIH/NCRR CTSA Grant no. UL1 RR024150. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

References

A. L. Folpe, “Neoplasms with perivascular epithelioid cell differentiation (PEComas),” in World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Pathology of Genetics of Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone, C. D. M. Fletcher, K. K. Unni, and F. Mertens, Eds., pp. 221–222, IARC Press, Lyon, France, 2002.

M. Pea, F. Bonetti, G. Zamboni, G. Martignoni, L. Fiore-Donati, and C. Doglioni, “Clear cell tumor and angiomyolipoma,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 199–201, 1991.

F. Bonetti, M. Pea, G. Martignoni et al., “PEC and Sugar,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 307–308, 1992.

E. G. Silva, M. T. Deavers, D. C. Bodurka, and A. Malpica, “Uterine Epithelioid Leiomyosarcomas with clear cells: reactivity with HMB-45 and the concept of PEComa,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 244–249, 2004.

G. Zamboni, M. Pea, G. Martignoni et al., “Clear cell ‘Sugar’ tumor of the pancreas: a novel member of the family of lesions characterized by the presence of perivascular epithelioid cells,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 722–730, 1996.

O. Fadare, V. Parkash, Y. Yilmaz et al., “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) of the uterine cervix associated with intraabdominal “PEComatosis”: a clinicopathological study with comparative genomic hybridization analysis,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 35, 2004.

A. L. Folpe, T. Mentzel, H. A. Lehr, C. Fisher, B. L. Balzer, and S. W. Weiss, “Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms of soft tissue and gynecologic origin: a clinicopathologic study of 26 cases and review of the literature,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1558–1575, 2005.

J. H. Baek, G. C. Moon, H. J. Dong, and H. O. Jae, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) in the transverse colon of an adolescent: a case report,” Tumori, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 106–108, 2007.

E. Gross, F. Vernea, M. Weintraub, and B. Z. Koplewitz, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the ascending colon mesentery in a child: case report and review of the literature,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 830–833, 2010.

J. C. Baez, J. M. Landry, J. R. Saltzman, X. Qian, M. J. Zinner, and K. J. Mortelé, “Pancreatic PEComa (sugar tumor): MDCT and EUS features,” Journal of the Pancreas, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 679–682, 2009.

J. L. Hornick and C. D. M. Fletcher, “Sclerosing PEComa: clinicopathologic analysis of a distinctive variant with a predilection for the retroperitoneum,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 493–501, 2008.

J. S. Shin, A. Spillane, E. Wills, and W. A. Cooper, “PEComa of the retroperitoneum,” Pathology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 93–95, 2008.

R. Mollazadeh, A. R. Moaref, M. Ghazinoor et al., “Pericardial PEComa: echocardiographic features,” International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. e5–e7, 2009.

H. D. Tazelaar, K. P. Batts, and J. R. Srigley, “Primary extrapulmonary sugar tumor (PEST): a report of four cases,” Modern Pathology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 615–622, 2001.

A. D. D'Anontio, A. Caleo, O. Caleo, G. De Dominicis, and A. Boscaino, “Monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the adrenal gland: an unusual site for a rare extrarenal tumor,” Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 347–350, 2009.

D. Govender, R. M. Sabaratnam, and A. S. Essa, “Clear cell 'sugar' tumor of the breast: another extrapulmonary site and review of the literature,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 670–675, 2002.

P. Iyengar, D. D. DeAngelis, M. Greenberg, and G. Taylor, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the orbit: a case report and review of the literature,” Pediatric and Developmental Pathology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 98–104, 2005.

S. Sadeghi, H. Krigman, and H. Maluf, “Perivascular epithelioid clear cell tumor of the common bile duct,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1107–1110, 2004.

L. Insabato, G. De Rosa, L. M. Terracciano, F. Fazioli, F. Di Santo, and J. Rosai, “Primary monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipoma of bone,” Histopathology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 286–290, 2002.

C. C. Pan, I. T. Yu, A. H. Yang, and H. Chiang, “Clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the urinary bladder,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 689–692, 2003.

M. L. Pianezza, J. Slatnik, and H. J. Evans, “Clear cell myomelanocytic tumour: minimally invasive treatment of a rare bladder tumour,” Journal of the Canadian Urological Association, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 230–234, 2008.

N. L. Lehman, “Malignant PEComa of the skull base,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1230–1232, 2004.

R. Akitake, H. Kimura, S. Sekoguchi et al., “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) of the liver diagnosed by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography,” Internal Medicine, vol. 48, no. 24, pp. 2083–2086, 2009.

P. D. Vigna, L. Preda, L. Monfardini, M. S. P. Gorone, F. A. Maffini, and M. Bellomi, “Growing perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the liver studied with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1781–1785, 2008.

S. H. Fang, L. N. Zhou, M. Jin, and J. B. Hu, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the liver: a report of two cases and review of the literature,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 13, no. 41, pp. 5537–5539, 2007.

O. Fadare, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) of the uterus: an outcome-based clinicopathologic analysis of 41 reported cases,” Advances in Anatomic Pathology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 63–75, 2008.

N. S. Azad, A. B. Aziz, S. Pervez, and N. Kayani, “Uterine perivascular epithelioid cell tumour presenting as a cervical mass,” Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 83–84, 2006.

T. Mentzel, S. Reißhauer, A. Rütten, M. Hantschke, L. M. Soares De Almeida, and H. Kutzner, “Cutaneous clear cell myomelanocytic tumour: a new member of the growing family of perivascular epithelioid cell tumours (PEComas). Clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of seven cases,” Histopathology, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 498–504, 2005.

N. Kuroda, M. Goda, D. V. Kazakov, O. Hes, M. Michal, and G. H. Lee, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the nasal cavity with TFE3 expression: letter to the Editor,” Pathology International, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 769–770, 2009.

J. Panelos, O. Gallo, I. Scala, and A. Franchi, “PEComa of the nasal septum,” Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 141, no. 4, pp. 543–544, 2009.

S. Huai-yin, W. Li-xin, S. Lu, and G. Ai-tao, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumors of the laryngopharynx: three case reports and literature review,” Pathology Research and Practice, vol. 205, no. 9, pp. 595–600, 2009.

A. L. Folpe, J. K. McKenney, Z. Li, S. J. Smith, and S. W. Weiss, “Clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the thigh: report of a unique case,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 809–812, 2002.

G. C. Harris, T. A. McCulloch, G. Perks, and C. Fisher, “Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumour (“PEComa”) of soft tissue: a unique case,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1655–1658, 2004.

I. S. Jeon and M. L. Sung, “Multimodal treatment using surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy in a patient with a perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the uterus,” Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 681–684, 2005.

I. S. Jeon and D. Y. Yi, “Acute lymphoblastic leukemia secondary to chemoradiotherapy for perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of uterus,” Pediatric hematology and oncology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 85–88, 2009.

L. Y. Ong, W. S. Hwang, A. Wong, M. Y. Chan, and C. H. Chui, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumour of the vagina in an 8 year old girl,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 564–566, 2007.

D. A. Osei, F. Alvandi, J. S. Brooks, and C. M. Ogilvie, “PEComa of the upper extremity: a unique case and description of an initial response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Sarcoma, vol. 2007, Article ID 53056, 2007.

I. Weinreb, D. Howarth, E. Latta, D. Ghazarian, and R. Chetty, “Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas): four malignant cases expanding the histopathological spectrum and a description of a unique finding,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 450, no. 4, pp. 463–470, 2007.

K. Yamashita and C. D. M. Fletcher, “PEComa presenting in bone: clinicopathologic analysis of 6 cases and literature review,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1622–1629, 2010.

L. Bosincu, P. C. Rocca, G. Martignoni et al., “Perivascular epithelioid cell (PEC) tumors of the uterus: a clinicopathologic study of two cases with aggressive features,” Modern Pathology, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1336–1342, 2005.

F. Chen, M. Omasa, N. Kondo et al., “Sirolimus Treatment for Recurrent Lymphangioleiomyomatosis After Lung Transplantation,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. e6–e7, 2009.

D. Fink, D. E. Marsden, L. Edwards, C. Camaris, and N. F. Hacker, “Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) arising in the broad ligament,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1036–1039, 2004.

A. L. Folpe, Z. D. Goodman, K. G. Ishak et al., “Clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the falciform ligament/ligamentum teres: a novel member of the perivascular epithelioid clear cell family of tumors with a predilection for children and young adults,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1239–1246, 2000.

J. R. Parfitt, A. J. Bella, B. M. Wehrli, and J. I. Izawa, “Primary PEComa of the bladder treated with primary excision and adjuvant interferon-alpha immunotherapy: a case report,” BMC Urology, vol. 6, p. 20, 2006.

P. Ryan, V. H. Nguyen, S. Gholoum et al., “Polypoid PEComa in the rectum of a 15-year-old girl: case report and review of PEComa in the gastrointestinal tract,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 475–482, 2009.

V. Subbiah, J. C. Trent, and R. Kurzrock, “Resistance to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor therapy in perivascular epithelioid cell tumors,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 24, p. e415, 2010.

R. Vang and R. L. Kempson, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor ('PEcoma') of the uterus: a subset of HMB-45-positive epithelioid mesenchymal neoplasms with an uncertain relationship to pure smooth muscle tumors,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2002.

F. Bonetti, G. Martignoni, C. Colato et al., “Abdominopelvic sarcoma of perivascular epithelioid cells. Report of four cases in young women, one with tuberous sclerosis,” Modern Pathology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 563–568, 2001.

D. C. de León, D. Pérez-Montiel, A. Bandera, C. Villegas, E. Gonzalez-Conde, and J. C. Vilchis, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of abdominal origin,” Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 173–177, 2010.

M. Fukunaga, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the uterus: report of four cases,” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 341–346, 2005.

L. A. Greene, S. L. Mount, A. R. Schned, and K. Cooper, “Recurrent perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the uterus (PEComa): an immunohistochemical study and review of the literature,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 677–681, 2003.

A. Italiano, C. Delcambre, I. Hostein et al., “Treatment with the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with malignant PEComa perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas) are rare,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1135–1137, 2010.

J. Peng, B. Yu, J. Wang, X. Hong, Y. Xu, and S. Cai, “An unresectable malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor resistant to multiple combined chemotherapies a unique case report,” Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. e136–e138, 2010.

A. J. Wagner, I. Malinowska-Kolodziej, J. A. Morgan et al., “Clinical activity of mTOR inhibition with sirolimus in malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumors: targeting the pathogenic activation of mTORC1 in tumors,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 835–840, 2010.

J. R. Parfitt, A. J. Bella, J. I. Izawa, and B. M. Wehrli, “Malignant neoplasm of perivascular epithelioid cells of the liver: late widespread metastases with long-term follow-up,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 130, no. 8, pp. 1219–1222, 2006.

A. Agaimy and P. H. Wünsch, “Perivascular epithelioid cell sarcoma (malignant PEComa) of the ileum,” Pathology Research and Practice, vol. 202, no. 1, pp. 37–41, 2006.

A. Dimmler, G. Seitz, W. Hohenberger, T. Kirchner, and G. Faller, “Late pulmonary metastasis in uterine PEComa,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 627–628, 2003.

J. L. Hornick and C. D. M. Fletcher, “PEComa: what do we know so far?” Histopathology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 75–82, 2006.

H. B. Armah and A. V. Parwani, “Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 133, no. 4, pp. 648–654, 2009.

N. Zekry, M. A. Rettenmaier, L. N. Abaid et al., “Perivascular Epithelioid cell neoplasms: a systematic review of prognostic factors,” Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 527–532, 2009.

T. Salviato, G. Altavilla, G. Busatto, S. Pizzolitto, and G. Falconieri, “Diffuse intra-abdominal clear cell myomelanocytic tumor: report of an unusual presentation of “PEComatosis” simulating peritoneal mesothelioma,” Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 352–356, 2006.

J. Moss, N. A. Avila, P. M. Barnes et al., “Prevalence and clinical characteristics of lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 164, no. 4, pp. 669–671, 2001.

S. K. Rakowski, E. B. Winterkorn, E. Paul, D. J. R. Steele, E. F. Halpern, and E. A. Thiele, “Renal manifestations of tuberous sclerosis complex: incidence, prognosis, and predictive factors,” Kidney International, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 1777–1782, 2006.

K. S. Au, A. T. Williams, E. S. Roach et al., “Genotype/phenotype correlation in 325 individuals referred for a diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex in the United States,” Genetics in Medicine, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 88–100, 2007.

O. Sancak, M. Nellist, M. Goedbloed et al., “Mutational analysis of the TSC1 and TSC2 genes in a diagnostic setting: genotype-phenotype correlations and comparison of diagnostic DNA techniques in tuberous sclerosis complex,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 731–741, 2005.

L. C. Costello, T. E. Hartman, and J. H. Ryu, “High frequency of pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis in women with tuberous sclerosis complex,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 591–594, 2000.

F. J. O'Callaghan, M. J. Noakes, C. N. Martyn, and J. P. Osborne, “An epidemiological study of renal pathology in tuberous sclerosis complex,” BJU International, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 853–857, 2004.

K. A. Casper, L. F. Donnelly, B. Chen, and J. J. Bissler, “Tuberous sclerosis complex: renal imaging findings,” Radiology, vol. 225, no. 2, pp. 451–456, 2002.

A. L. Folpe and D. J. Kwiatkowski, “Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms: pathology and pathogenesis,” Human Pathology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2010.

K. S. Au, A. A. Hebert, E. S. Roach, and H. Northrup, “Complete inactivation of the TSC2 gene leads to formation of hamartomas [6],” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 1790–1795, 1999.

C. Carbonara, L. Longa, E. Grosso et al., “Apparent preferential loss of heterozygosity at TSC2 over TSC1 chromosomal region in tuberous sclerosis hamartomas,” Genes Chromosomes and Cancer, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 18–25, 1996.

T. Al-Saleem, L. L. Wessner, B. W. Scheithauer et al., “Malignant tumors of the kidney, brain, and soft tissues in children and young adults with the tuberous sclerosis complex,” Cancer, vol. 83, no. 10, pp. 2208–2216, 1998.

T. Carsillo, A. Astrinidis, and E. P. Henske, “Mutations in the tuberous sclerosis complex gene TSC2 are a cause of sporadic pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97, no. 11, pp. 6085–6090, 2000.

G. Benvenuto, S. Li, S. J. Brown et al., “The tuberous sclerosis-1 (TSC1) gene product hamartin suppresses cell growth and augments the expression of the TSC2 product tuberin by inhibiting its ubiquitination,” Oncogene, vol. 19, no. 54, pp. 6306–6316, 2000.

J. Huang and B. D. Manning, “The TSC1-TSC2 complex: a molecular switchboard controlling cell growth,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 412, no. 2, pp. 179–190, 2008.

J. Huang, C. C. Dibble, M. Matsuzaki, and B. D. Manning, “The TSC1-TSC2 complex is required for proper activation of mTOR complex 2,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 4104–4115, 2008.

J. J. Bissler, F. X. McCormack, L. R. Young et al., “Sirolimus for angiomyolipoma in tuberous sclerosis complex or lymphangioleiomyomatosis,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 358, no. 2, pp. 140–151, 2008.

D. M. Davies, S. R. Johnson, A. E. Tattersfield et al., “Sirolimus therapy in tuberous sclerosis or sporadic lymphangioleiomyomatosis,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 358, no. 2, pp. 200–203, 2008.

C. C. Pan, M. Y. Chung, K. F. Ng et al., “Constant allelic alteration on chromosome 16p (TSC2 gene) in perivascular epithelioid cell tumour (PEComa): genetic evidence for the relationship of PEComa with angiomyolipoma,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 214, no. 3, pp. 387–393, 2008.

H. Kenerson, A. L. Folpe, T. K. Takayama, and R. S. Yeung, “Activation of the mTOR pathway in sporadic angiomyolipomas and other perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms,” Human Pathology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1361–1371, 2007.

H. B. Armah and A. V. Parwani, “Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) of the uterus with late renal and pulmonary metastases: a case report with review of the literature,” Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 45, 2007.

S. K. Lau, A. M. Marchevsky, R. J. McKenna, and D. J. Luthringer, “Malignant monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the retroperitoneum,” International Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 223–228, 2003.