Research Radartracking 1,762 published studies Β· 471 human Β· 11 safety signals Β· 58 clinical trials Β· 44 cancer pages Β· updated Sep 2026Open the Research Map β†’

Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

A plain-English summary of the published research on Uterine Leiomyosarcoma, reviewed and approved by our editors β€” not a hand-curated clinical overview.

Research summary Β· reviewed
Educational only: This page is not medical advice. Coordinate decisions with your oncology team.

Reviewed Jun 2026 Β· OncoForge editorial Β· How we review β†’

AI extractedhuman reviewedsources checkedretractions suppressedΒ· last updated Jun 2026

Evidence at a glanceHuman trial / meta-analysisMixed results⚠ Studies disagree
68 published studies that name Uterine Leiomyosarcoma28 human studies approved & graded (trial, observational, or meta-analysis)278 human clinical studies in the Uterine Leiomyosarcoma corpus2760 source documents in the Uterine Leiomyosarcoma corpus

last checked June 19, 2026

Why this grade?

Human trial / meta-analysis β€” Includes human trial or meta-analysis evidence.

Computed deterministically from the studies’ types and reported outcomes β€” not written by AI, and not a claim that anything works.

What the guidelines say

NCI PDQESMONCCNASCO

We link the authoritative guidelines rather than reproduce them. Below, the treatments on this page are split into standard care, guideline or regulatory options, supportive care, and studied but not standard so established care is not mixed with experimental or supportive items.

Guideline / FDA options - context-specific
  • bevacizumab
  • pembrolizumab
Studied, not standard - investigational
  • cisplatin
  • olaparib
  • trastuzumab deruxtecan
  • Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan (T-Dxd)
  • dacarbazine
  • doxorubicin
  • gemcitabine
  • ifosfamide
  • nivolumab
  • Resveratrol
  • Selenium (Stand-alone)

Read the guidelines

Cancer-specific deep links aren’t curated yet β€” these search the authoritative sources for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma.

Treatment map: Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Open as a full page β†’

Standard care plus every compound studied in the literature (each cited) and graded by evidence, organized by clinical readiness. A category, not a verdict that anything works β€” confirm anything here with your oncology team.

13
Interventions
0
Standard of care
4
Tested in people
7
Lab / animal
0
Named in lit.
4
Classes
Standard of care (0) Guideline option (2) Tested in people (4) Lab / animal only (7) Named in the literature (0)

Tested in people, by trial phase: phase not reported Γ—4

Clinical evidence
Preclinical evidence
Standard of care
Guideline option
Tested in people
Lab / animal only
Named in the literature
Chemotherapy
β€”
β€”
1
4
β€”
Targeted therapy
β€”
1
3
β€”
β€”
Immunotherapy
β€”
1
β€”
1
β€”
Supplements & natural agents
β€”
β€”
β€”
2
β€”

Columns group into clinical evidence (used in, or tested on, people) and preclinical evidence (lab/animal, or only named in the literature). Cell = number of interventions; a dashed cell means none recorded there.

Established care β€” detail (2)
Targeted therapy
bevacizumab
FDA-approved for this cancer.
β€”Guideline option
Immunotherapy
pembrolizumab
FDA-approved for this cancer.
β€”Guideline option
Investigational & adjunct compounds β€” detail (11)

"Tested in people" rows show the highest trial phase found in that compound's cited human studies (Phase I–IV; "phase not reported" = a human study with no phase tag). "Studied" = named in the cited literature for this cancer. "FDA βœ“" = FDA-approved for this cancer; "off-label" = an FDA-approved drug used outside its approved indications (per openFDA). Not a claim that anything works.

Reported figures

Get cited updates on Uterine Leiomyosarcoma
A monthly email when the research changes β€” $10/mo. Manage follows
Follow Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Snapshot

The essentials in ~60 seconds β€” every line is drawn from the cited sources below.

Survival
Lynch-syndrome-associated cancers typically have better prognoses than sporadic cancers affecting the same organs. [1]
Standard treatment
Perioperative multimodal management using POMGAT-S3 principles is recommended and can be applied to gynaecological operations to improve recovery and speed return to intended oncological treatment. ESMO also recommends tumour next-generation sequencing (NGS) for rare tumours such as sarcoma to detect tumour-agnostic alterations when matched therapies are available or in research settings. [2][3]
Key test
Mismatch repair (MMR) / microsatellite instability (MSI) testing (by immunohistochemistry, PCR or NGS) and tumour NGS (including large-panel NGS for tumour mutation burden) are the key tests that can change management. [4][3][1]
Biggest challenge
A main challenge is limited direct evidence for MMR/MSI and other biomarker-guided approaches in cancers outside the gastrointestinal tract, together with the need for access to tumour NGS for rare tumours like sarcoma. [4][3]

Ask about Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Answers come only from the cited sources on this page β€” with the supporting evidence shown. If the sources here don't cover your question, it will say so. Educational information, not medical advice.

Key numbers & factors

Risk factors

  • β–² increases riskpath_MMR (Lynch syndrome) carrier status β€” Increases risk of several cancers including endometrial cancer. [1]
  • β–² increases riskSmoking (in path_MMR carriers) β€” Increases colorectal cancer risk. [1]
  • β–² increases riskObesity (in path_MMR carriers) β€” Increases colorectal cancer risk. [1]
  • β–² increases riskAlcohol consumption (in path_MMR carriers) β€” Increases colorectal cancer risk. [1]
  • β–Ό lowers riskPhysical activity (in path_MMR carriers) β€” Reduces colorectal cancer risk. [1]
  • β–Ό lowers riskRegular daily aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid, β‰₯75 mg) β€” Reduces colorectal cancer risk in individuals with Lynch syndrome / path_MMR carriers. [5][1]

Biomarkers

  • Mismatch repair (MMR) / microsatellite instability (MSI) testing (IHC, PCR, NGS)ActionableDetect MMR deficiency / MSI to identify patients eligible for tumour-agnostic immune checkpoint inhibitor approval and to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial and colorectal cancers. [4][1]
  • Tumour next-generation sequencing (large-panel NGS)ActionableDetect tumour-agnostic alterations and identify matched therapies; recommended for rare tumours such as sarcoma in centres with access to matched therapies or research programmes. [3][4]
  • Tumour mutation burden (by large-panel NGS) Β· Included in the scope of MMR/MSI review as a genomic measure assessed by large-panel NGS. [4]

7 sections β€” tap any heading to expand its cited detail. Key points are above.

OverviewGuidelines in precision oncology now recommend tumour NGS for rare tumours such as sarcoma. An FDA approval exists for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced solid tumors with DNA mismatch repair defects or high levels of microsatellite instability, and carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair variants have increased risk of several cancers including endometrial cancer.3 points
  • The ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group expanded recommendations for tumour NGS to include rare tumours such as sarcoma. [3]
  • An FDA approval exists for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced solid tumors with DNA mismatch repair defects or high levels of microsatellite instability, according to the MMR/MSI guideline. [4]
  • Carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair (path_MMR) variants have an increased risk of several cancers including endometrial cancer. [1]
Key biomarkersGuidelines recommend molecular testing including tumour NGS in selected settings and assessment of mismatch-repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) biomarkers; evidence supporting MMR/MSI approaches is stronger for colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers than for non-gastrointestinal tumours. Testing for MMR deficiency is specifically recommended for all colorectal and endometrial cancers to screen for Lynch syndrome.3 points
  • ESMO recommends performing tumour NGS to detect tumour-agnostic alterations in patients with metastatic cancers when access to matched therapies is available, and also recommends tumour NGS in clinical research centres and in specific circumstances discussed with patients. [3]
  • The MMR/MSI guideline specified that mismatch repair immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability testing by PCR and NGS, and tumour mutation burden by large-panel NGS were within the scope of the review, and noted that more and higher-quality evidence was identified for colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers than for cancers arising outside the gastrointestinal tract. [4]
  • All colorectal and endometrial cancers should be tested for evidence of MMR deficiency to screen for Lynch syndrome. [1]
Standard managementMultimodal perioperative management and adherence to perioperative guidelines are associated with reduced complications, shorter hospital stays, and faster return to intended oncological treatment; perioperative recommendations can be applied beyond gastrointestinal surgery to gynecological and urological operations. Separately, the Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for surveillance, management, and prevention of gynaecological cancers in Lynch syndrome are endorsed.4 points

Key figures

Survival & outcomes
OutcomeValue95% CI
RD 0.96 with 95% confidence interval [0.92; 0.99]0.960.92–0.99
median of 2.33 days [-2.98; -1.69]2.33β€”
median of 2.59 days [-3.22; -1.97]2.59β€”
Prognostic factors
FactorEffectHR (95% CI)p
RR 0.66 [0.54; 0.80]β–Ό better0.66 (0.54–0.8)β€”
Source quotes
  • β€œMeta-analyses have shown that mPOM lowers the complication rates of both pancreatic and colorectal resections (RD 0.96 with 95% confidence interval [0.92; 0.99] and RR 0.66 [0.54; 0.80], respectively).”
  • β€œThis shortens the hospital stay after pancreatic resections by a median of 2.33 days [-2.98; -1.69] and after colorectal resections by a median of 2.59 days [-3.22; -1.97].”
  • Meta-analyses have shown that multimodal perioperative management (mPOM) lowers postoperative complication rates for pancreatic and colorectal resections and shortens hospital stay after pancreatic resections by a median of 2.33 days and after colorectal resections by a median of 2.59 days. [2]
  • Adherence to the POMGAT-S3 guideline for pancreatic and colorectal cancer surgery is associated with improved recovery and can lead to a faster return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT) and thus to better long-term outcomes. [2]
  • The perioperative management recommendations are not restricted to gastrointestinal cancer surgery and can also be applied to gynecological and urological operations. [2]
  • The Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for surveillance, management and prevention of gynaecological cancers in Lynch syndrome are endorsed. [1]
What we don't know yetGuidance on MMR/MSI testing emphasizes stronger evidence for colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers than for non‑GI tumors, leaving limited direct evidence for cancers outside the GI tract. Potentially modifiable factors such as aspirin prophylaxis and lifestyle are identified as areas for prevention and further research.2 points
  • The cited MMR/MSI guideline highlights stronger evidence for colorectal and other GI cancers than for cancers outside the GI tract, indicating limited direct evidence in that document for non-GI tumors. [4]
  • The source states that potentially modifiable factors include acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) prophylaxis and lifestyle. [1]
Epidemiology1 point
  • The prevalence of path_MMR carriers has been estimated at around one in 300. [1]
Prognosis1 point
  • Typically, Lynch-syndrome-associated cancers have significantly better prognoses than sporadic cancers affecting the same organs. [1]
Safety & interactionsIn people with Lynch syndrome (path_MMR carriers), several modifiable lifestyle factors are associated with colorectal cancer risk: smoking, obesity, and alcohol increase risk, while physical activity reduces it. Regular daily aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), at doses reported as at least 75 mg, has been reported to reduce colorectal cancer risk in these carriers.2 points
  • Regular use of daily aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), reported at doses of at least 75 mg, reduces colorectal cancer risk in individuals with Lynch syndrome / path_MMR carriers. [5][1]
  • For path_MMR (Lynch syndrome) carriers, smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption increase colorectal cancer risk, while physical activity reduces colorectal cancer risk. [1]

Common questions

What is Uterine Leiomyosarcoma?

Guidelines in precision oncology now recommend tumour NGS for rare tumours such as sarcoma. An FDA approval exists for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced solid tumors with DNA mismatch repair defects or high levels of microsatellite instability, and carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair variants have increased risk of several cancers including endometrial cancer.

Which biomarkers are important in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma?

Guidelines recommend molecular testing including tumour NGS in selected settings and assessment of mismatch-repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) biomarkers; evidence supporting MMR/MSI approaches is stronger for colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers than for non-gastrointestinal tumours. Testing for MMR deficiency is specifically recommended for all colorectal and endometrial cancers to screen for Lynch syndrome.

How is Uterine Leiomyosarcoma treated?

Multimodal perioperative management and adherence to perioperative guidelines are associated with reduced complications, shorter hospital stays, and faster return to intended oncological treatment; perioperative recommendations can be applied beyond gastrointestinal surgery to gynecological and urological operations. Separately, the Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for surveillance, management, and prevention of gynaecological cancers in Lynch syndrome are endorsed.

What is still being researched in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma?

Guidance on MMR/MSI testing emphasizes stronger evidence for colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers than for non‑GI tumors, leaving limited direct evidence for cancers outside the GI tract. Potentially modifiable factors such as aspirin prophylaxis and lifestyle are identified as areas for prevention and further research.

What do studies report about safety & interactions in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma?

In people with Lynch syndrome (path_MMR carriers), several modifiable lifestyle factors are associated with colorectal cancer risk: smoking, obesity, and alcohol increase risk, while physical activity reduces it. Regular daily aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), at doses reported as at least 75 mg, has been reported to reduce colorectal cancer risk in these carriers.

Sources

Every statement above is drawn from these reviewed sources. This page reports what they describe. Sources last checked June 19, 2026.

  1. GuidelineEuropean guidelines from the EHTG and ESCP for Lynch syndrome: an updated third edition of the Mallorca guidelines based on gene and gender Β· 2021
  2. GuidelineClinical Practice Guideline: Recommendations for the Perioperative Management of Pancreatic and Colorectal Cancer Patients Β· 2024
  3. GuidelineRecommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with advanced cancer in 2024: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group Β· 2024
  4. GuidelineMismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer Β· 2022
  5. GuidelineGuidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG) Β· 2020

What supports this page

The kinds of sources behind this page, strongest at the top. Faint rungs show what is not here yet.

Guideline
110
Meta-analysis
166
Systematic review
62
Randomized trial
12
Clinical trial
37
Observational
6
Case report
184
Review
2172
Preclinical
0
Other
11

Living document β€” last change June 19, 2026: Cancer page updated. 2 recent updates logged.

Pooled evidence across studies

PubMed
  • Colon cancer risk: HR 1.22 (1.13–1.22 across studies) Β· red meat
    3 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent40210826
  • Colorectal cancer risk: HR 1.17 (1.15–1.21 across studies) Β· red meat
    3 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent40210826
  • Rectal cancer risk: HR 1.22 (1.17–1.28 across studies) Β· red meat
    3 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent40210826
  • DFS: 23.1 months (22.2–29.7 across studies) Β· radiation therapy
    3 studies Β· 67% agree Β· moderate Β· 1 flagged35307963
  • ASCVD incidence: HR 1.56 (0.91–2.8 across studies) Β· (regimen unspecified)
    3 studies Β· 33% agree Β· heterogeneous40445187
  • CRC risk: 41% (19–73 across studies) Β· red and processed meat intake (RPMI)
    3 studies Β· 33% agree Β· heterogeneous35268052
  • Colorectal cancer incidence: RR 1.135 (1.1–1.17 across studies) Β· red meat
    2 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent34455534
  • Colon cancer incidence: RR 1.19 (1.17–1.21 across studies) Β· red meat
    2 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent34455534
  • Rectal cancer incidence: RR 1.24 (1.22–1.26 across studies) Β· red meat
    2 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent34455534
  • Lung cancer incidence: RR 1.23 (1.2–1.26 across studies) Β· red meat
    2 studies Β· 100% agree Β· consistent34455534
  • Type 2 diabetes risk: 9.5% (8–11 across studies) Β· processed meat
    2 studies Β· 0% agree Β· heterogeneous40588677
  • Ischemic heart disease (IHD) risk: 2.5% (2–3 across studies) Β· processed meat
    2 studies Β· 0% agree Β· heterogeneous40588677

Compounds compared by evidence

PubMed

How to read this: Ranked by the strength and volume of the evidence β€” NOT by how well a treatment works. A higher rank means a compound has been studied more, or in stronger study designs (e.g. randomized trials over lab studies), not that it produces better outcomes. The effect column shows the largest pooled figure reported, not a head-to-head comparison.

#CompoundEvidence strengthStudiesLargest pooled effect
1Cisplatin ChemotherapyHuman Β· observational1β€”
2Olaparib Targeted therapyHuman Β· observational1β€”
3Trastuzumab Deruxtecan Targeted therapyHuman Β· observational1β€”
4Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan (T-Dxd) Targeted therapyHuman Β· observational1β€”
5Bevacizumab Targeted therapyInsufficient evidence1β€”
6Dacarbazine OtherInsufficient evidence1β€”
7Doxorubicin ChemotherapyInsufficient evidence1β€”
8Ifosfamide OtherInsufficient evidence1β€”
9Nivolumab †Rx ImmunotherapyInsufficient evidence1β€”
10Pembrolizumab ImmunotherapyInsufficient evidence1β€”
11Resveratrol OtherInsufficient evidence1β€”
12Selenium (Stand-alone) OtherInsufficient evidence1β€”

Medicines & supplements studied for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

PubMedFDAClinicalTrials.gov

Every drug, supplement, and other agent the published studies cover for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma, ranked by how strong the evidence is β€” what studies report, not a recommendation. Tap any to see its full profile.

Medicines Β· 11

CisplatinHuman Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: Individuals with HRD uLMS in the screened cohort 9%, n=58 PMID 37143137 Β· effect sizes 2–13 across 4 studies

Most authoritative study: Targeting homologous recombination deficiency in uterine leiomyosarcoma

Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
OlaparibHuman Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: Individuals with HRD uLMS in the screened cohort 9%, n=58 PMID 37143137 Β· effect sizes 2–13 across 4 studies

Most authoritative study: Targeting homologous recombination deficiency in uterine leiomyosarcoma

Based on a single study.
Targeted therapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
Trastuzumab DeruxtecanHuman Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: median PFS 5.4 mo [0.8–9.8], n=10 PMID 39639215 Β· effect sizes 1–5 across 3 studies

Most authoritative study: Real-world evidence of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd) Efficacy in HER2-expressing gynecological malignancies

Based on a single study.
Targeted therapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan (T-Dxd)Human Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: median PFS 5.4 mo [0.8–9.8], n=10 PMID 39639215 Β· effect sizes 1–5 across 3 studies

Most authoritative study: Real-world evidence of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd) Efficacy in HER2-expressing gynecological malignancies

Based on a single study.
Targeted therapy1 studyFull profile β†’
BevacizumabInsufficient evidenceInconclusive

No primary experimental studies yet.

Largest credible effect: objective response (complete + partial) 35%, n=69 PMID 29759566 Β· response rates 11–35 across 4 studies

Most authoritative study: Role of bevacizumab in uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· Based on a single study.
Targeted therapyFDA approved1 studyFull profile β†’
DacarbazineInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Management of advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
DoxorubicinInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Management of advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
GemcitabineInsufficient evidenceReported positive

No primary experimental studies yet.

Largest credible effect: time_to_brain_metastasis 44 mo, n=1 PMID 37158392 Β· effect sizes 8–44 across 2 studies

Most authoritative study: Brain and lung metastasis of uterine leiomyosarcoma: illustrative case

No human studies yet Β· Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
IfosfamideInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Management of advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
Nivolumab †RxInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Uterine leiomyosarcoma: A review of the literature and update on management options

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
Immunotherapy1 studyFull profile β†’
PembrolizumabInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Uterine leiomyosarcoma: A review of the literature and update on management options

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
ImmunotherapyFDA approved1 studyFull profile β†’

Supplements & natural agents Β· 2

ResveratrolInsufficient evidenceReported positive

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Mediterranean diet and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
Supplements & natural agentsFDA off-label1 studyFull profile β†’
Selenium (Stand-alone)Insufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Dietary Factors Modulating Colorectal Carcinogenesis

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
Supplements & natural agents1 studyFull profile β†’

What recent studies report in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

These are reviewed studies whose abstracts concern Uterine Leiomyosarcoma. Each describes only what that study reported. This is not a claim by OncoForge that any compound helps or harms Uterine Leiomyosarcoma. Most are early lab, animal, or small human studies, and findings often conflict.

60 studies26 human1 lab⚠ Conflicting evidenceMechanism (26)Supportive care (3)Trial (1)

Tracking 60 published studies of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: 26 in humans, 1 in the lab, 33 reviews/other.

Reported direction across studies: 25 positive, 15 mixed, 3 negative, 17 inconclusive.

Findings conflict β€” both supportive and negative/mixed results exist (see below). Human evidence is limited.

These counts summarize what the studies reported; they are not a measure of whether anything works for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma.

Compounds with studies mentioning Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Trastuzumab deruxtecan t dxd (1)Trastuzumab deruxtecan (1)Gemcitabine (1)Olaparib (1)Cisplatin (1)Selenium (1)Nivolumab (1)Pembrolizumab (1)Bevacizumab (1)Resveratrol (1)
ReviewMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 4 Β· clinical

Immune landscape and potential role of immune checkpoint inhibitors on uterine leiomyosarcoma: a review

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society Β· Jan 2026

uterine leiomyosarcoma

This is a narrative review of the immune environment of uterine leiomyosarcoma and the potential role of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The authors report variable PD-L1 expression, heterogeneous lymphocytic infiltration, and interactions with tumor-associated macrophages, note modest response rates to checkpoint inhibitors in clinical trials, and discuss that dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade and chemotherapy-induced immunogenic cell death may enhance immune activation in select patients. They conclude that combinatorial and personalized strategies, improved immune profiling, and macrophage-targeted approaches merit further study.

Studied with: anti-CTLA-4 + anti-PD-1 dual checkpoint blockade, chemotherapy (to induce immunogenic cell death), targeted immunomodulation, macrophage-targeted therapies.

Key findings
  • Uterine leiomyosarcoma has a variable tumor immune microenvironment including variable PD-L1 expression and differential lymphocytic infiltration.
  • Interactions with tumor-associated macrophages shape immune responses in leiomyosarcoma.
  • Clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors in leiomyosarcoma have produced modest response rates.
  • Molecular analyses suggest that specific sub-groups of leiomyosarcoma patients may derive greater benefit from checkpoint inhibition.
  • Dual-checkpoint blockade combining anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 has demonstrated enhanced immune activation in select patients.
  • Chemotherapy-induced immunogenic cell death has been explored as a complementary approach to immunotherapy.
  • Authors recommend innovative combinatorial strategies, improved patient selection, enhanced macrophage-targeted therapies, and optimized immune profiling for future research.
Limitations: Narrative review onlyβ€”no new primary experimental or patient-level data are presented.; Conclusions are based on heterogeneous published studies and molecular analyses rather than definitive randomized trial evidence.; Abstract reports only 'modest response rates' in trials without quantitative pooled estimates or meta-analysis.; Leiomyosarcoma heterogeneity and rarity limit generalizability of existing trial results (as noted by authors)..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human Β· observationalMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 Β· early humann = 71

Methylation Signatures Identify Two Distinct Clusters of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma With Unique Histologic and Clinical Behaviors

Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc Β· Nov 2025 Β· Array-based global methylation profiling analysis of tumor samples (71 uterine leiomyosarcoma) compared with several other uterine mesenchymal tumors and soft tissue leiomyosarcoma

uterine leiomyosarcomauterine mesenchymal tumorssoft tissue leiomyosarcoma

Researchers performed array-based global methylation profiling on 71 uterine leiomyosarcoma samples and compared them to other uterine mesenchymal tumors and soft tissue leiomyosarcoma. They found that uLMS have distinct methylation patterns versus other tumor types and that methylation profiling identifies two distinct uLMS subgroups with differing copy number alterations and distinct histologic and clinical behaviors. The authors report this is the first study to describe methylation profiling as a diagnostic tool to differentiate uLMS from its mimics.

Key findings
  • uLMS demonstrated distinct methylation patterns differing from all other tumor types.
  • Methylation profiling defines 2 distinct subgroups of uLMS with differing copy number alterations.
  • The two methylation-defined subgroups exhibit unique histologic and clinical behaviors, supported by differences in methylation pathway analysis.
  • This study is the first to report methylation profiling as a useful diagnostic tool in differentiating uLMS from mimics.
Limitations: Observational molecular profiling study without interventional or longitudinal clinical trial data; Sample size limited to 71 uLMS; sizes of comparator tumor groups not reported in abstract; No external validation cohort reported in the abstract; No functional validation experiments described to confirm biological significance of methylation differences; Details on clinical outcome measures, follow-up duration, and statistical metrics are not provided in the abstract.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewReported positiveModerate evidenceTier 4 Β· clinical

Processed Meat Health Risks: Pathways and Dietary Solutions

The Journal of nutrition Β· Nov 2025 Β· review

colorectal cancerbreast cancerendometrial cancerlung cancer

This review summarizes epidemiologic evidence linking red and processed meat consumption with higher risks of multiple chronic diseases, including colorectal, breast, endometrial, and lung cancers, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. It reports that processed meats show stronger associations than unprocessed red meat, with dose-response relationships indicating elevated risks even at moderate intakes. The authors describe plausible biological mechanisms (carcinogen formation, inflammation, gut microbiome changes, heme iron, TMAO, and metabolic effects) and note inconsistencies such as short-term randomized trial biomarker findings and modification of risk by overall diet, lifestyle, and genetics. The review concludes that minimizing processed meat and replacing red/processed meats with plant proteins, poultry, or fish is expected to reduce disease risk, and it calls for further research on causality, mechanisms, and population diversity.

Studied with: plant proteins, poultry, fish.

Key findings
  • Observational studies and meta-analyses show positive associations between red/processed meat consumption and multiple chronic diseases, including colorectal, breast, endometrial, and lung cancers, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality.
  • Dose-response relationships indicate elevated risks even at moderate intakes.
  • Processed meats consistently show stronger detrimental associations than unprocessed red meats.
  • Mechanistic pathways discussed include carcinogen formation, proinflammatory effects, gut microbiome dysbiosis, heme iron, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), saturated fats, and effects on lipid metabolism and insulin resistance.
  • Replacing red/processed meats with plant proteins, poultry, or fish is associated with reduced disease risk according to the review.
  • Evidence complexities include inconsistent randomized controlled trial findings on short-term biomarkers and substantial modification of risk by processing, cooking methods, overall diet, lifestyle, and genetic factors.
Limitations: Predominantly observational epidemiologic evidence, which is susceptible to confounding and cannot establish causality.; Inconsistent randomized controlled trial findings limited to short-term biomarkers rather than clinical endpoints.; Heterogeneity introduced by differences in processing methods, cooking techniques, and definitions of processed versus unprocessed meat.; Potential modification of associations by overall diet, lifestyle, and genetic factors, complicating interpretation.; Identified gaps include need for greater mechanistic specificity, more diverse populations, and integrated health-environment assessments..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human Β· observationalMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 Β· early humann = 6

Single-cell profiling delineates the tumor microenvironment and immunological networks in patient-derived uterine leiomyosarcoma

Frontiers in immunology Β· Aug 2025 Β· Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of metastatic lesions from a treatment-naΓ―ve uterine leiomyosarcoma patient compared to normal uterine myometrium samples (MMM, n=5); integrated analyses including CNV, pseudotime, cell-cell communication, functional enrichment, and mpIF validation; survival correlations with TCGA-SARC cohort.

uterine leiomyosarcoma

The authors performed single-cell RNA sequencing on metastatic lesions from one treatment-naΓ―ve uterine leiomyosarcoma patient and compared the data to five normal myometrium samples. They found an immunosuppressed tumor microenvironment characterized by exhausted CD8+ T cells, M2-like tumor-associated macrophages, and immature N2 neutrophils enriched in metastatic foci; these features correlated with poorer prognosis in TCGA-SARC analyses. The study also identified cell-cell communication axes (MIF-(CD74+CD44), CXCL8) and candidate biomarkers (EDARADD, CLDN10, TMIGD2) and dysregulated pathways (TGF-beta, angiogenesis, MIF signaling).

Key findings
  • The tumor microenvironment showed prominent immunosuppression with exhausted CD8+ T cells, with initial markers (CCR7, MAL) diminishing over time and exhaustion markers (LAG3, HAVCR2, TIGIT) enriched.
  • M2-polarized macrophages were mainly composed of M2-like TAMs with tumor-promoting characteristics (CD163, FTH1, FTL, TIMP1) and there was a polarization trajectory from M1 to M2.
  • Immature, tumor-promoting N2 neutrophils (CD15+EDARADD+) were enriched in metastatic foci and associated with poor prognosis.
  • Cell-cell communication analyses highlighted MIF-(CD74+CD44) interactions between T/B cells and a role for the CXCL8 signaling axis in promoting angiogenesis, TAM polarization, and immunosuppression.
  • Constructed a comprehensive single-cell map of ULSA, defined a metastasis-susceptible cell subset (U11-EDARADD), and nominated biomarkers (EDARADD, CLDN10, TMIGD2) and dysregulated pathways (TGF-Ξ², angiogenesis, MIF signaling) as possible targets for future combined-immunotherapy development.
Limitations: Tumor single-cell data derive from a single ULSA patient (metastatic lesions from one individual), limiting generalizability.; Normal comparator samples are limited (MMM, n=5) and cohort sizes are small.; Observational single-cell profiling cannot establish causal relationships between identified cell states/pathways and clinical outcomes or therapy resistance.; Survival associations were assessed using TCGA-SARC correlations (indirect validation) rather than validation in an independent ULSA cohort.; No interventional or functional experiments reported to validate that identified biomarkers/pathways drive immunosuppression or therapy resistance..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed Β· Full text

Human Β· observationalSupportive careMixed resultsModerate evidenceTier 3 Β· early humann = 267586

Risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease after cancer diagnosis: findings from 3 prospective cohort studies

Journal of the National Cancer Institute Β· Aug 2025 Β· prospective cohort study

Supportive carecervical cancerHodgkin lymphomaprostate cancerbreast cancercolorectal cancerlung cancerendometrial canceroral cavity and pharynx cancerkidney cancerovarian cancersarcomamelanomaleukemia

Researchers followed participants in three large prospective cohorts for up to 36 years to examine whether a cancer diagnosis was associated with later atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). They documented 4,334 new ASCVD events among 49,603 incident cancer cases and found that cervical cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma were associated with higher ASCVD risk, prostate cancer with slightly lower risk, and that ASCVD risk trajectories over time varied by cancer type (for example, breast cancer survivors had lower ASCVD risk for the first 7.5 years, then risk increased).

Reported effects: new-onset ASCVD events among incident cancer cases 4334, n=49603 Β· cervical cancer HR 1.56 [1.06–2.29] Β· +6 more

Key findings
  • During up to 36 years of follow-up, 4,334 new-onset ASCVD events among 49,603 incident cancer cases were documented.
  • Cervical cancer was associated with increased ASCVD incidence (HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.29).
  • Hodgkin lymphoma was associated with increased ASCVD incidence (HR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.89 to 4.15).
  • Prostate cancer was associated with lower ASCVD incidence (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.97).
  • Breast cancer survivors experienced lower ASCVD risk during the first 7.5 years after diagnosis, but risk gradually increased afterward (Pnonlinearity = .01).
  • ASCVD risk increased over time among patients with cancers of the colorectum (P = .003), lung (P = .002), and endometrium (P = .04).
  • No statistically significant association with ASCVD risk was observed for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, kidney, or ovary; sarcoma; melanoma; or leukemia.
Limitations: Observational cohort design cannot establish causality.; Potential for residual confounding despite multivariable adjustment.; Cohorts consist of nurses and health professionals, which may limit generalizability to other populations.; Abstract does not report details on cancer stage or treatments, which could influence ASCVD risk..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed Β· Full text

Human Β· observationalReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 Β· early human

Health effects associated with consumption of processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids: a Burden of Proof study

Nature medicine Β· Jul 2025 Β· meta-analysis (Burden of Proof meta-regression)

colorectal cancer

This Burden of Proof meta-regression analyzed associations between processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and trans fatty acids (TFAs) and risks of type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and colorectal cancer. The authors reported conservative estimates that processed meat intake was associated with at least an 11% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 7% increase in colorectal cancer risk; SSBs with at least an 8% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 2% increase in IHD risk; and TFAs with at least a 3% increase in IHD risk. The associations were given two-star ratings indicating weak or inconsistent input evidence, and the authors note further research is needed while recommending limiting consumption given disease burden.

Reported effects: average increase in type 2 diabetes risk (processed meat, 0.6-57 g/day) 11% Β· average increase in colorectal cancer risk (processed meat, 0.78-55 g/day) 7% Β· +3 more

Key findings
  • Processed meat (0.6-57 g/day) was associated with at least an 11% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk (relative to zero consumption).
  • Processed meat (0.78-55 g/day) was associated with at least a 7% average increase in colorectal cancer risk (relative to zero consumption).
  • SSB intake (1.5-390 g/day) was associated with at least an 8% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk (relative to zero consumption).
  • SSB intake (0-365 g/day) was associated with at least a 2% average increase in ischemic heart disease (IHD) risk (relative to zero consumption).
  • TFA consumption (0.25-2.56% of daily energy intake) was associated with at least a 3% average increase in IHD risk (relative to zero consumption).
  • Each association received two-star ratings reflecting weak relationships or inconsistent input evidence; authors recommend further research and continuing recommendations to limit consumption given high chronic disease burden.
Limitations: Findings are based on meta-regression of existing studies rather than randomized trials, so causal inference is limited.; The authors rate the associations as two-star, indicating weak or inconsistent input evidence.; Dose-response characterization is described as limited and the results are presented as conservative estimates relative to zero consumption..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Meta-analysisReported positiveStrong evidenceTier 4 Β· clinicaln = 60

Association between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective studies

GeroScience Β· Jun 2025 Β· meta-analysis of prospective studies

colorectal cancercolon cancerrectal cancer

This meta-analysis pooled 60 prospective studies to evaluate associations between red, processed, and total meat consumption and colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer risk. Higher intake of red, processed, and total meat was each associated with modestly increased hazard ratios for colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer in the pooled analyses.

Reported effects: Red meat - colon cancer HR 1.22 [1.15–1.3] Β· Red meat - colorectal cancer HR 1.15 [1.1–1.21] Β· +7 more

Key findings
  • Red meat consumption was associated with increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.15-1.30), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.21), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39).
  • Processed meat consumption was associated with increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.20), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.14-1.28), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30).
  • Total meat consumption was associated with increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.35), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.22), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.10-1.48).
Limitations: Observational prospective studies cannot establish causation; associations may reflect residual confounding.; Potential heterogeneity across included studies (populations, exposure assessment, covariate adjustment) may affect pooled estimates.; Dietary measurement error and misclassification in the original studies may bias results.; Abstract does not report dose-response specifics or uniform exposure definitions across studies..

AI summary of the abstract, published automatically under the strong-evidence tier Β· Jul 2026; an editor has not yet reviewed it. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed Β· Full text

Human Β· observationalReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 Β· early humann = 10

Real-world evidence of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd) Efficacy in HER2-expressing gynecological malignancies

BMC cancer Β· Dec 2024 Β· retrospective cohort

Trastuzumab-deruxtecan-t-dxdTrastuzumab-deruxtecanendometrial neoplasmsovarian neoplasmscervical neoplasmsuterine carcinosarcomauterine leiomyosarcomauterine serous carcinomaovarian carcinosarcomahigh-grade serous ovarian carcinomamucinous ovarian carcinomasquamous cervical carcinoma

This retrospective single-center study identified 10 patients with HER2-expressing (IHC 2+/3+) recurrent or metastatic gynecological cancers who received trastuzumab deruxtecan (5.4 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks). The cohort had a median progression-free survival of 5.4 months (95% CI 0.8-9.8). Five patients had a partial response, one had stable disease at 12 weeks, and four had disease progression at initial assessment. Clinical benefit was observed mainly in tumors with HER2 IHC 3+.

Reported effects: median PFS 5.4 mo [0.8–9.8], n=10 Β· partial responses 5, n=10 Β· +2 more

Key findings
  • 10 patients with recurrent/metastatic HER2-expressing gynecological malignancies were treated with T-DXd.
  • Histologies included uterine neoplasms (n=5), cervical squamous carcinoma (n=1) and ovarian cancers (n=4).
  • Median age was 65.4 years (25th-75th percentile, 58.1-75.2 years).
  • HER2 by IHC: 5 patients were 3+ and 5 patients were 2+.
  • Median number of prior therapy lines was 4 (range 2-6); 2 uterine serous carcinoma patients were pretreated with trastuzumab and 4 patients had prior immunotherapy.
  • Dose: T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks until progression/toxicity.
  • Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the cohort was 5.4 months (95% CI 0.8-9.8 months).
  • Responses: 5 patients had partial response (including 2 previously treated with trastuzumab), 1 patient had stable disease at 12 weeks, 4 patients had disease progression at initial assessment.
  • Most patients who derived clinical benefit had HER2 IHC 3+ expression.
Limitations: Retrospective, single-center design; Very small sample size (n=10); No control or comparator arm; Heterogeneous mix of gynecologic histologies; Heavily pre-treated population limits generalizability; Limited/absent reporting of safety or adverse event data in the abstract; Potential selection and reporting bias inherent to retrospective series.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed Β· Full text

Human Β· observationalSupportive careInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 3 Β· early humann = 9

Osseous metastases of uterine leiomyosarcoma: Analysis of survival & surgical management

Injury Β· Nov 2024 Β· retrospective cohort study

Supportive careuterine leiomyosarcomabone metastasis (appendicular)

This is a retrospective review of nine patients with appendicular bone metastases from uterine leiomyosarcoma treated at a single center between 2004 and 2021. The study compared palliative surgical management versus conservative treatment and found no difference in survival between the groups. Bone metastases occurred a mean of 33.3 months after diagnosis, and six of nine patients died after bone metastasis. The authors recommend individualized assessment before palliative surgery.

Reported effects: cohort_patients_meeting_initial_inclusion 114, n=114 Β· patients_with_appendicular_metastases 9, n=9 Β· +11 more

Key findings
  • One hundred fourteen patients diagnosed with uterine leiomyosarcoma and treated at the Department of Oncologic Orthopedics at XXX hospital from 2004 to 2021 met the criteria for inclusion in this retrospective cohort study.
  • Notably, the study included nine follow-up patients with at least 2 years of follow-up who developed appendicular skeletal metastases during the follow-up period.
  • Of the 9 patients, 3 had humeral metastases, 2 had femoral metastases, 1 had femoral and diffuse pelvic metastases, and the other 3 had pelvic metastases.
  • Bone metastases occurred at a mean of 33.3 ± 32.4 months (range 3 - 108) after the diagnosis.
  • After bone metastasis, 6 patients died after an average of 40.3 ± 26.7 months (range 12-84 months).
  • Surgical interventions included: 1 patient with a pathologic fracture in the proximal humerus underwent resection arthroplasty, 1 patient with metastases in the proximal femur underwent resection arthroplasty, 2 patients with metastases to the femoral shaft underwent curettage-cementation (C&C) and intramedullary nailing, and 1 patient with persistent pelvic pain underwent C&C. No surgery was performed in the other patients.
  • Conclusion reported: survival did not differ between palliative surgery and conservative treatment after appendicular bone metastases.
Limitations: Retrospective, single-center design; Very small analytic sample (n=9) of patients with appendicular metastases; Potential selection bias (excluded patients with only vertebral metastases); No randomized allocation to surgical versus conservative management; Abstract provides no statistical test results or p-values to support the stated comparison; Level IV evidence.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human Β· observationalMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 Β· early humann = 32

Implications of the Hippo Pathway Dysregulation in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Anticancer research Β· Aug 2024

uterine leiomyosarcoma

The authors analyzed Hippo pathway components (YAP1 and TAZ by immunohistochemistry and YAP1 by FISH) in tumor samples from 32 patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma. They found Hippo signaling dysregulation in 20/32 patients (62.5%), nuclear YAP1 expression in 17/32 (53.1%), and YAP1 amplification in 8/32 (25%). The study reports a trend suggesting Hippo pathway deregulation is a positive prognostic factor for overall survival.

Reported effects: Hippo signaling dysregulation 62.5%, n=32 Β· Nuclear YAP1 expression (IHC) 53.1%, n=32 Β· +1 more

Key findings
  • Hippo signaling was found to be dysregulated in 20 (62.5%) patients with uLMS.
  • Nuclear expression of YAP1 was detected in 17 (53.1%) of the 32 patients with immunohistochemistry.
  • YAP1 amplification was found in 8 (25%) patients.
  • Regarding OS the authors detected a trend of Hippo deregulation, designating it as a positive prognostic factor.
Limitations: Small sample size (n=32).; Observational, tissue-based study without reported statistical measures (no p-values, HRs, CIs provided in abstract).; Abstract does not report results for TAZ despite stating it was analyzed.; No details on multivariate analysis or adjustment for confounders are provided in the abstract.; Prognostic finding described as a 'trend' with no quantitative survival data in the abstract..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 4 Β· clinical

Molecular genetics and research progress of uterine leiomyosarcoma

Yi chuan = Hereditas Β· Aug 2024 Β· review

uterine leiomyosarcoma

This article is a review of the molecular pathology of uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS). The authors summarize molecular genetic features, epigenetic variants, experimental models, and clinical research progress, and note that understanding of uLMS pathogenesis is inadequate and disease models are limited, which hinders development of effective therapies.

Key findings
  • uLMS is an aggressive malignant soft-tissue tumor arising from the myometrium that is difficult to distinguish from benign leiomyoma in early stages and has a poor prognosis.
  • Current studies of uLMS pathogenesis and disease biology are inadequate.
  • uLMS disease models are very limited, which hinders development of effective therapeutics.
  • The review systematically summarizes molecular genetic features, epigenetic alterations, experimental models, and clinical research progress, and discusses directions including tumor evolution, the tumor microenvironment, and therapy development.
Limitations: This publication is a review and does not present new primary experimental or clinical data.; Abstract does not describe review methods in detail (e.g., search strategy, inclusion criteria).; Field-level limitations noted by the authors include inadequate pathogenesis studies and limited disease models, which constrain conclusions about therapeutic development..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 4 Β· clinical

Comprehensive Review of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Targeted Therapy

Cells Β· Jun 2024

uterine leiomyosarcoma

This is a narrative review summarizing current knowledge about uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS), including its poor prognosis and high rates of recurrence and metastasis. The authors discuss multiple biological pathways implicated in uLMS (DNA repair, immune checkpoints, protein kinases, hedgehog), the emerging roles of epigenetics and the epitranscriptome, biomarkers and diagnostic approaches (including AI and shear wave elastography), current medical management, and ongoing clinical trials. The abstract notes that drugs targeting abnormal pathway functions have been reported to improve survival but that chemotherapy resistance remains a major challenge.

Key findings
  • uLMS has a poor prognosis with high rates of recurrence and metastasis; five-year survival reported between 25 and 76%, and survival approaches 10-15% for patients with metastatic disease at initial diagnosis.
  • Multiple biological pathways are implicated in uLMS pathogenesis, including DNA repair defects, immune checkpoint pathways, protein kinases/intracellular signaling, and the hedgehog pathway.
  • The review states that drugs that block abnormal functions of these pathways have been reported to remarkably improve survival in uLMS patients.
  • Chemotherapy resistance remains a major unmet need, motivating the search for novel drugs that effectively target these pathways.
  • The authors review emerging roles of epigenetics and the epitranscriptome, as well as serum markers, AI/machine learning approaches, shear wave elastography, current management options, and ongoing clinical trials.
Limitations: Narrative review rather than primary research β€” no original patient-level data presented.; Abstract does not state systematic review methods or a structured literature search, so selection bias in included literature is possible.; Broad scope synthesizes preclinical, early-phase, and clinical data together, which may mix evidence levels.; Survival ranges reported are wide and drawn from the literature rather than newly generated cohort data..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed Β· Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed Β· Full text

Browse all studies mentioning Uterine Leiomyosarcoma β†’

Where the evidence is

What has been studied, and how strong it is, by topic. A dashed cell means no studies were found for that combination β€” a gap, not evidence of no effect. Open a row to see its studies.

CompoundHuman evidenceMechanismSafetyTrial
Cisplatin11β€”β€”
Olaparib11β€”β€”
Trastuzumab Deruxtecan1β€”β€”β€”
Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan (T-Dxd)1β€”β€”β€”
Bevacizumabβ€”1β€”β€”
Dacarbazineβ€”1β€”β€”
Doxorubicinβ€”1β€”β€”
Gemcitabineβ€”β€”β€”β€”
Ifosfamideβ€”1β€”β€”
Nivolumab †Rxβ€”β€”β€”β€”
Pembrolizumabβ€”β€”β€”β€”
Resveratrolβ€”β€”β€”β€”
Selenium (Stand-alone)β€”1β€”β€”

Study mix

68 published studies by what they were done in. Lab and animal findings often do not carry over to people.

28 Human1 Lab39 Review/other
Reported directionReported positive30Mixed results17Reported negative3Inconclusive18

Compounds with reported-positive results in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Where at least one study reported a positive result, shown with the full picture, not just the wins. Positive results are more likely to be published, and most of these are early lab or animal studies that may not translate to people. This reports what studies found, not what works.

Human evidence

Limitations: Retrospective, single-center design; Very small sample size (n=10); No control or comparator arm; Heterogeneous mix of gynecologic histologies; Heavily pre-treated population limits generalizability; Limited/absent reporting of safety or adverse event data in the abstract.
Cited positive studies (1)
Trastuzumab Deruxtecan1 positive1 human
Limitations: Retrospective, single-center design; Very small sample size (n=10); No control or comparator arm; Heterogeneous mix of gynecologic histologies; Heavily pre-treated population limits generalizability; Limited/absent reporting of safety or adverse event data in the abstract.
Cited positive studies (1)
Olaparib1 positive1 human
Limitations: Small number of HRD cases (5 of 58), with only three patients having mature clinical follow-up.; Non-randomized, observational access to PARPi in patients (no control arm reported).; PDX (preclinical) findings may not fully predict clinical efficacy.; Sequencing methods varied across samples (WGS, WES, panel), and some genomic HRD metrics (CHORD) were discordant.; No dosing, schedule, or detailed treatment-response durations provided in the abstract..
Cited positive studies (1)
Cisplatin1 positive1 human
Limitations: Small number of HRD cases (5 of 58), with only three patients having mature clinical follow-up.; Non-randomized, observational access to PARPi in patients (no control arm reported).; PDX (preclinical) findings may not fully predict clinical efficacy.; Sequencing methods varied across samples (WGS, WES, panel), and some genomic HRD metrics (CHORD) were discordant.; No dosing, schedule, or detailed treatment-response durations provided in the abstract..
Cited positive studies (1)
Preclinical only: lab / animal (2)
Gemcitabine1 positive
Limitations: Single-patient case report (n=1), so findings are not generalizable.; Short reported follow-up (8 months) limits assessment of long-term outcomes.; Literature review methods are not described in the abstract (potentially non-systematic and subject to bias).; No control group or randomized comparison to establish causality for the observed outcomes.; No chemotherapy dosing or detailed regimen schedule reported in the abstract..
Cited positive studies (1)
Resveratrol1 positive
Limitations: Includes in vitro data which may not translate to humans.; Clinical evidence described as associations; causality not established in the abstract.; Abstract does not report quantitative effect sizes, doses, or standardized regimens.; Authors state that more clinical studies are needed to determine precise dose and administration..
Cited positive studies (1)

Evidence at a glance: compounds studied in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

A deterministic grade of what published studies report for each: strength of evidence, the reported direction, and the largest credible effect, strongest-evidence first. This summarizes findings; it is not a claim that anything works.

CisplatinHuman Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: Individuals with HRD uLMS in the screened cohort 9%, n=58 PMID 37143137 Β· effect sizes 2–13 across 4 studies

Most authoritative study: Targeting homologous recombination deficiency in uterine leiomyosarcoma

Based on a single study.
OlaparibHuman Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: Individuals with HRD uLMS in the screened cohort 9%, n=58 PMID 37143137 Β· effect sizes 2–13 across 4 studies

Most authoritative study: Targeting homologous recombination deficiency in uterine leiomyosarcoma

Based on a single study.
Trastuzumab DeruxtecanHuman Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: median PFS 5.4 mo [0.8–9.8], n=10 PMID 39639215 Β· effect sizes 1–5 across 3 studies

Most authoritative study: Real-world evidence of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd) Efficacy in HER2-expressing gynecological malignancies

Based on a single study.
Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan (T-Dxd)Human Β· observationalReported positive1 human

Human observational evidence only β€” no trials.

Largest credible effect: median PFS 5.4 mo [0.8–9.8], n=10 PMID 39639215 Β· effect sizes 1–5 across 3 studies

Most authoritative study: Real-world evidence of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd) Efficacy in HER2-expressing gynecological malignancies

Based on a single study.
BevacizumabInsufficient evidenceInconclusive

No primary experimental studies yet.

Largest credible effect: objective response (complete + partial) 35%, n=69 PMID 29759566 Β· response rates 11–35 across 4 studies

Most authoritative study: Role of bevacizumab in uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· Based on a single study.
DacarbazineInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Management of advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
DoxorubicinInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Management of advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
GemcitabineInsufficient evidenceReported positive

No primary experimental studies yet.

Largest credible effect: time_to_brain_metastasis 44 mo, n=1 PMID 37158392 Β· effect sizes 8–44 across 2 studies

Most authoritative study: Brain and lung metastasis of uterine leiomyosarcoma: illustrative case

No human studies yet Β· Based on a single study.
IfosfamideInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Management of advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
Nivolumab †RxInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Uterine leiomyosarcoma: A review of the literature and update on management options

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
PembrolizumabInsufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Uterine leiomyosarcoma: A review of the literature and update on management options

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
ResveratrolInsufficient evidenceReported positive

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Mediterranean diet and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.
Selenium (Stand-alone)Insufficient evidenceMixed results

No primary experimental studies yet.

Most authoritative study: Dietary Factors Modulating Colorectal Carcinogenesis

No human studies yet Β· No numeric effect sizes reported Β· Based on a single study.

What the research shows for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

A plain-language summary of the reviewed studies OncoForge tracks for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma. It reports what those studies described, not a claim that any compound or therapy helps or harms Uterine Leiomyosarcoma. Most of this evidence is early, and findings often conflict.

  • Studies report narrative reviews of uterine leiomyosarcoma that summarize its biology, poor prognosis, high recurrence rates, and the range of management approaches (surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and investigational targeted agents), but these reviews reach mixed or inconclusive conclusions about optimal systemic therapies.
  • Studies report a genomic sequencing study of 167 uterine leiomyosarcomas that identified recurrent genomic alterations and led to a proposed immunohistochemical (IHC) algorithm (p53, Rb, PTEN, ATRX, with follow-up markers) to help classify uterine smooth muscle tumors; this was developed and validated within the reported cohorts.
  • Studies report concern in case reports and reviews that undiagnosed uLMS can have worse outcomes when procedures such as morcellation are used, supporting surgical caution in management discussions.
  • Studies report a small retrospective single-center case series of 10 patients with HER2-expressing recurrent/metastatic gynecologic cancers treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan showing a median progression-free survival of 5.4 months, but the series did not include uLMS patients specifically and its retrospective, heterogeneous design limits conclusions for uLMS.

Compounds studied in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan (T-Dxd)1 study
In these studies, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) was reported in a small retrospective series of HER2-expressing recurrent or metastatic gynecologic cancers (given IV 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks) with a median progression-free survival of 5.4 months; the cohort was small, retrospective, and did not specifically include uterine leiomyosarcoma, limiting applicability to uLMS.
Trastuzumab Deruxtecan1 study
In these studies, trastuzumab deruxtecan was evaluated in a single-center retrospective cohort of HER2-expressing gynecologic tumors with limited sample size and follow-up; the report did not provide data specific to uterine leiomyosarcoma, so relevance to uLMS is uncertain.

Supportive & alternative options discussed

  • Exercise / prehabilitation: Also discussed as a supportive option for maintaining physical function and quality of life in people with uterine leiomyosarcoma; these studies did not evaluate exercise interventions.
  • Mind–body (MBSR / CBT): Also discussed as a supportive option for coping, stress reduction, and quality-of-life support in uterine leiomyosarcoma care; these studies did not assess mind–body therapies.
  • Acupuncture: Also discussed as a supportive option for symptom management (for example, pain or nausea) in gynecologic cancers including uLMS in broader literature; the studies summarized here did not evaluate acupuncture.
  • Mistletoe (VAE): Also discussed in some settings as a complementary/supportive option in gynecologic oncology; the studies summarized for uLMS did not provide evidence on mistletoe.

What we don’t know yet

  • Whether trastuzumab deruxtecan or similar HER2-targeted antibody–drug conjugates have activity in uterine leiomyosarcoma specificallyβ€”no published prospective clinical trials in uLMS were reported.
  • How common and clinically meaningful HER2 expression or other targetable biomarkers are in uLMS, and which biomarkers predict response to targeted agents.
  • Optimal dosing, safety, and long-term outcomes of agents like trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with uLMS are unknown.
  • Whether the diagnostic IHC algorithm derived from sequencing cohorts improves clinical outcomes, and how it should be applied across diverse clinical settings.
Most information comes from narrative reviews, a genomic sequencing/diagnostic study, and a very small retrospective series in mixed gynecologic cancers; there are no substantive prospective clinical trial data specific to uterine leiomyosarcoma to establish clinical benefit.

Clinical trials in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

11 ongoing Β· 50 completed Β· tracked from ClinicalTrials.gov. Recruiting is not the same as proven, and completed is not the same as positive β€” read the results. Not a recommendation.

Completed
17 stopped (terminated / withdrawn / suspended)

Search all trials on ClinicalTrials.gov β†’

Getting care & support

Nonprofit / Gov

Practical, vetted help for Uterine Leiomyosarcoma β€” advocacy, paying for treatment, second opinions, and caregivers.

If you’re struggling emotionally, you don’t have to wait.

Advocacy & community

No dedicated organization for this specific cancer is curated yet β€” these general organizations can help in the meantime.

Financial help

  • PAN Foundation β†— β€” Copay assistance funds by diagnosis (funds open and close as money allows). Β· status changes often β€” check the fund’s site
  • HealthWell Foundation β†— β€” Copay and premium assistance funds by disease. Β· status changes often β€” check the fund’s site
  • CancerCare β€” financial assistance β†— β€” Limited grants plus free financial counseling. Β· status changes often β€” check the fund’s site
  • Family Reach β†— β€” Help with everyday living costs (rent, transport, food) during treatment. Β· status changes often β€” check the fund’s site
  • NeedyMeds β†— β€” Searchable directory of drug patient-assistance and discount programs. Β· status changes often β€” check the fund’s site
What you’ll typically need to apply
  • Your diagnosis and, if you have it, the specific drug/treatment name (from your care team).
  • Insurance details β€” your member ID card, or a note that you're uninsured (some funds require active insurance, some don't).
  • Proof of income and household size (recent pay stubs, a tax return, or a benefits letter) β€” most funds are income-based.
  • Your prescriber's contact information; some programs need the clinic to submit part of the application.
  • Apply early and re-check: funds open and close as money is available, so a closed fund may reopen.

General guidance β€” each program sets its own eligibility. Confirm requirements on the program’s site.

Help paying for the medicines on this page

Second opinions

Caregiver support

We list only non-profit and government resources β€” never product sellers β€” and take no affiliate fees. If a link is broken or a resource doesn't meet that bar, tell us.

Interactions & safety to check: Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

This is not a complete interaction check. It only covers the compounds we track and the signals reported in studies. A drug or supplement not listed here is not therefore safe. Bring your full medication and supplement list to your pharmacist and oncologist before changing anything.

Potential interactions: highest-stakes first

  • Nivolumab †RxΓ—immunosuppressantshigh-stakeshigh
    Avoid: Blunts efficacy (e.g., chronic steroids).
  • ResveratrolΓ—anticoagulantshigh-stakesmoderate
    Monitor: Potential platelet inhibition.
  • ResveratrolΓ—CYP3A4 substrateshigh-stakeslow
    Monitor: Induction may lower levels (e.g., statins).
  • Selenium (Stand-alone)Γ—platinum_chemohigh-stakeslow
    Monitor: Potential antagonism; time separately.
  • Nivolumab †RxΓ—Ipilimumabmoderate
    Synergize: Higher irAE but OS gains in melanoma.
  • Nivolumab †RxΓ—corticosteroidslow
    Use For IrAE: High-dose for toxicity; low-dose physiologic OK.
  • ResveratrolΓ—Doxorubicinlow
    Synergize: Apoptosis enhancement in breast.
  • Selenium (Stand-alone)Γ—antioxidantslow
    Synergize: Redox balance enhancement.
  • Selenium (Stand-alone)Γ—Cisplatinlow
    Synergize: Nephroprotection in lung cancer.

Safety considerations

Heading to an appointment? Get a printable one-page summary β€” studied compounds, open trials, interactions, and questions to ask.
Bring this to your appointment β†’