The novel role of MDM2 in the diagnosis and treatment of dedifferentiated liposarcoma
Jiro Ichikawa,Tomonori Kawasaki,Kojiro Onohara,Satoshi Kanno,Masanori Wako,Satoshi Ochiai,Kaoru Aoki,Hirotaka Haro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1466399
IF: 4.7
2024-10-19
Frontiers in Oncology
Abstract:Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) is a subtype of liposarcoma that frequently occurs in the retroperitoneum. Approximately 10% of atypical lipomatous tumors/well-differentiated liposarcomas (ALTs/WDLPSs) are dedifferentiated, with one risk factor being a retroperitoneal location (1). DDLPS exhibits heterogeneous differentiation, including myogenic or osteosarcomatous/chondrosarcomatous elements (1). The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of DDLPS show diversity because the degree of fat components within DDLPS may vary in each case, suggesting that the diagnostic power of MRI is limited and that histopathological findings are needed (2). The importance of MDM2 and CDK4 in histopathological diagnosis, especially in immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), remains unclear, and the importance of these two markers as therapeutic targets has been recently highlighted (3,4). We read, with great interest, the article by Dr. Sosnowska-Sienkiewicz and colleagues titled "A Rare Case of Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma with Osteosarcomatous Differentiation-Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges" published in Diseases (5). Owing to this well-written paper's high value in the field, we would like to comment on it from the perspective of our sarcoma team, with recent diagnostic and therapeutic developments to add.Our paper discusses the following topics: 1) the clinical features of heterogeneous differentiation; 2) the role of MRI in the diagnosis of DDLPS; 3) the role of histopathology in the diagnosis of DDLPS; and 4) treatment strategies.Approximately 5-10% of patients with DDLPS show heterogeneous differentiation (1). The most common differentiation is myogenic (Fig. 1); however, osteosarcomatous/chondrosarcomatous and angiosarcomatous elements, although very rare, have also been reported (1,6). Myogenic differentiation in DDLPS has been investigated. Binh et al. (7) reported that in 27 cases of DDLPS, myogenic differentiation did not affect prognosis or metastasis compared to conventional DDLPS. In contrast, Gronchi et al. (6) reported that in 52 cases of DDLPS, myogenic differentiation in the retroperitoneum, in addition to the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC) grade, affected overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis. The differences between these two reports are as follows: 1) case number and 2) tumor location (Binh's cases originated in the internal trunk). Additionally, Kurzawa et al. proposed a combined myogenic differentiation score based on IHC staining of smooth muscle actin and desmin, evaluated by scoring intensity and focality. The combined myogenic differentiation score correlated with disease-free survival and OS, suggesting that further research could develop its clinical application (8). In osteogenic differentiation, 36 cases of DDLPS with osteogenic differentiation were reported (9); retroperitoneal location correlated with local recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival, but not with OS. In contrast, the FNCLCC grade correlated with OS and distant metastasis-free survival, suggesting a trend similar to that of myogenic differentiation (9). Further analyses with a large series may elucidate the nature of "osteogenic differentiation" in DDLPS.MRI is a novel diagnostic modality for adipose tumors, regardless of whether they are benign or malignant. DDLPS often contains an ALT/WDLPS component, and the detection of the ALT/WDLPS component by MRI contributes largely to the differential diagnosis (Fig. 2) (2). Owing to the abundance of fat tissue in the retroperitoneum, the distinction between adipose tissue or lipoma and ALT/WDL, even by MRI alone, is often difficult; however, the combination of MRI and other factors, including diameter, the presence or absence of septa, and contrast effects, increases both the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing ALT/WDLPS (10). In fact, in this case, fat tissue was present at the edge of the tumor or surrounding the tumor on computed tomography (CT).Considering that these fat tissues may be part of the tumor, the ALT/WDL component, MRI can be used to determine the extent of surgical resection. However, caution is required, as the degree of fat content on MRI varies in each case of DDLPS; it was reported that 24% of cases had a high fat content, while 44% of cases had no fat content at all (2). Based on these findings, it would be extremely difficult to diagnose DDLPS without a fat component using MRI alone, even if it is of retroperitoneal origin. On the other hand, undoubtedly, CT is beneficial for detecting ossification and calcification. In cases of ossification without a connection to the skeletal system, extraskeletal osteosarcoma (EO) should always be considered a differential diagnosis (11). Imaging features of EO, including various degrees of necrosis, hemorrhagic changes on MRI in almost all cases, and calcific -Abstract Truncated-
oncology