ArticleBMC cancer2024
Overdiagnosis of atypical lipomatous tumors/well-differentiated liposarcomas by morphological diagnosis using only HE stained specimens: a case-control study with MDM2/CDK4 immunostaining and MDM2/CDK4 fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clinical diagnosis and treatment for well-differentiated liposarcoma: A clinical practice guideline.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Article
- Prognostic Implications of MDM2 and CDK4 Co-amplification in Liposarcoma: Insights from FISH analysis for Translational Oncology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Madelung's disease involving the scrotum: a case report and diagnostic pitfalls with liposarcoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Primary Renal Mesenchymal Tumors: A Study from North India, Emphasizing Rare Entities and Molecular Profiles.Journal of kidney cancer and VHL · 2026Article
- Developing a diagnostic model to differentiate the well-differentiated lipomatous tumors based on clinicopathological characteristics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of Local Recurrence Rates Between Wide Resection and Expanded Marginal Excision in Atypical Lipomatous Tumors.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A Novel Odontogenic Carcinoma with CDK4/MDM2 Co-Amplification: Expanding the Phenotypic Spectrum of Malignant Odontogenic Entities.Head and neck pathology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLipomatous tumors represent the most common type of soft tissue neoplasms. Mouse double minute 2 homolog (MDM2)/cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) immunostaining is considered effective in differentiating between benign lipomas and intermediate malignant atypical lipomatous tumors/well-differentiated liposarcomas (ALT/WDLPSs). However, these tumors have traditionally been diagnosed histopathologically using hematoxylin and eosin-stained specimens, which is referred to here as morphological diagnosis. In this study, the accuracy of morphological diagnoses that had been made before MDM2/CDK4 immunostaining became available for distinguishing between lipoma and ALT/WDLPS was examined.
methodsThe study participants were 109 patients with a morphological diagnosis of lipoma (68 patients) or ALT/WDLPS (41 patients) who had undergone surgical resection of the tumor in our hospital between 2009 and 2012. Tissue samples from all patients were used for MDM2/CDK4 immunostaining and the confirmation of MDM2/CDK4 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).
resultsOf the 41 patients with a morphological diagnosis of ALT/WDLPS, only 17 were positive for MDM2 FISH. In addition, one of the 68 patients with a morphological diagnosis of lipoma showed MDM2 amplification by FISH. When the definitive diagnosis of ALT/WDLPS was made by the positive results of MDM2 FISH, the sensitivity and specificity of morphological diagnosis were 41.5% and 98.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of MDM2 and CDK4 immunostaining was 55.6% and 40.0%, respectively, and their specificity was 87.0% and 84.6%, respectively. This indicates that the diagnostic accuracy of these immunostaining assays was not particularly high. The clinical features suggesting ALT/WDLPS were: patient age (older), maximum tumor diameter (large, cut-off value of 125 mm), tumor location (lower limb), and tumor depth (deep-seated).
conclusionsMorphological diagnosis alone can accurately diagnose lipomas. However, it has a propensity to overdiagnose ALT/WDLPS. Thus, MDM2 FISH should be used more proactively, not only for lesions with obvious morphological abnormalities, but also for lipomatous tumors that are clinically suggestive of ALT/WDLPS.
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.