ArticleKorean journal of pathology2012
Diagnostic Value of MDM2 and DDIT3 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Liposarcoma Classification: A Single-Institution Experience.
Article in Korean journal of pathology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synchronous Presentation of Intraperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- [Clinical value of fluorescenceBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2023Article
- FISH Diagnostic Assessment ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Differentiating and Categorizing of Liposarcoma and Synovial Sarcoma Neoplasms by Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization.Iranian journal of pathology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe amplification of murine double minutes (MDM2) is the primary feature of well-differentiated liposarcomas (WDLPS) and dedifferentiated liposarcomas (DDLPS), while DDIT3 rearrangement is the main one of myxoid liposarcomas (MLPS). Our aim was to evaluate the added value of MDM2 amplification and DDIT3 rearrangement in making a diagnosis and classifying lipogenic tumors.
methodsEighty-two cases of liposarcoma and 60 lipomas diagnosed between 1995 and 2010 were analysed for MDM2 amplification and DDIT3 rearrangement using a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The subtypes of liposarcoma were reclassified according to the molecular results, whose results were reviewed with an analysis of the relevant histologic and immunohistochemical findings.
resultsOne case of lipoma (1.67%) was reclassified as a WDLPS. Of the liposarcomas, 13.4% (16/82) were reclassified after the molecular testing. Five cases of MLPS were reclassified as four cases of DDLPS and one case of myxoid lipoma. Two cases of WDLPS were reclassified as one case of spindle cell lipoma and another case of myxofibrosarcoma. Four cases of DDLPS were reclassified as two cases of leiomyosarcoma, one case of angiomyolipoma and another case of fibroinflammatory lesion. Of the six cases of pleomorphic liposarcoma, five were reclassified as DDLPS.
conclusionsIn our series, a critical revision of diagnosis was found at a rate of 3.5% (5/142) after a review of the lipomatous lesions. The uses of molecular testing by MDM2 and DDIT3 FISH were valuable to make an accurate subtyping of liposarcomas as well as to differentiate WDLPS from benign lipomatous tumor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.