4.5 Article

Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma With Meningothelial-like Whorls, Metaplastic Bone Formation, and CDK4, MDM2, and p16 Expression: A Morphologic and Immunohistochemical Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 356-363

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31820832c1

Keywords

well-differentiated liposarcoma; dedifferentiated liposarcoma; whorling; metaplastic bone; CDK4

Funding

  1. NHS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied 5 cases of dedifferentiated liposarcoma with meningothelial-like whorls and metaplastic bone formation, assessing morphology and immunohistochemical expression of a panel of antigens (CDK4, MDM2, and p16 proteins, desmin, smooth muscle actin, h-caldesmon, CD34, AE1/AE3, epithelial membrane antigen, claudin-1, S100 protein, CD21, CD35, CD117, beta-catenin, vimentin, and MIB1). The specimens were from the retroperitoneum (3), pelvis (1) or paratesticular region (1), and all 5 specimens comprised exclusively or predominantly dedifferentiated liposarcoma. All 5 dedifferentiated liposarcomas showed prominent metaplastic bone, 3 produced cartilage, and 1 also had osteosarcomatous tissue. The whorls comprised concentric distributions of spindle or epithelioid cells. All cases expressed smooth muscle actin, 3 strongly, whereas 4 cases showed at least focal claudin-1 positivity. In all cases, the whorls expressed at least 2 of CDK4, MDM2, and p16. The presence of 2 morphologic subsets and the immunohistochemical findings suggest that the whorls in these dedifferentiated liposarcomas exhibit divergent myofibroblastic and possibly perineurial differentiation. The CDK4, MDM2, and p16 expression in the whorls suggests that they share a similar genetic background to well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcoma, and that additional genetic events are causal to their distinct morphology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available