A Case of Inversion of the Uterus caused by a Squamouscelled Carcinoma of the Fundus.<sup>1</sup>

Williamson, Herbert; Abercrombie, Gavin

doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1923.tb06677.x

Cited by 13 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Baggish and Woodruff (1967) reviewed the causes of squamous metaplasia in the uterine cavity. They quoted Gellhorn (1897) as believing that squamous metaplasia was a rare physiological process occurring as part of senile involution in the atrophic uterus; it can occur as a complication of various infectionspyometra was reported in 6 of the 13 cases listed in Table I; it can occur with foreign irritants of many types including intra-uterine devices, chemical agents, irradiation and chronic mechanical trauma as in inversion (for example, cases reported by Gillespie (1962) and Williamson and Abercrombie (1923)). Vitamin deficiencies have been shown by a number of authors quoted by Baggish and Woodruff (1967) to have a role in the production of squamous metaplasia in the uterus, as also has stimulation by hormones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Squamous Carcinoma of the Body of the Uterus

Hopkin¹,

Harlow²,

Stevens³

1970

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY.-A case of primary squamous carcinoma of the body of the uterus in an 83 year old patient is reported. It is believed to be only the fourteenth adequately substantiated example. This condition apparently occurs at a average age of 5 or more years greater than that at which adenocarcinoma of the endometrium occurs. Our patient may have had generalized squamous metaplasia of the uterine surface epithelium preceding development of this tumour, but the aetiology of the squamous metaplasia in this case is not clear. One possible factor was her menopause by irradiation 35 years before the tumour developed; an association between irradiation and uterine malignancy is reported but the significance of that association is not certain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%