ArticleCytoJournal2025
Clinicopathological and molecular diagnostic features of liposarcoma: A study of 27 cases.
Article in CytoJournal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Case Report: A giant dedifferentiated liposarcoma in the retroperitoneum.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Liposarcomas are rare tumors, and it is difficult to collect cases in less densely populated areas. Therefore, we aimed to document more cases over a relatively long period to provide more data about the characteristics of liposarcomas. In this study, the clinicopathological features of liposarcomas were investigated in 27 patients. Material and Methods: All cases were confirmed by diagnosis through hematoxylin and eosin staining, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and fluorescence Results: Seven cases of liposarcoma were located in the paratesticular region (25.9%, 7/27), 12 in the retroperitoneum (44.4%, 12/27), and eight in the limbs (29.6%, 8/27). Histological analysis showed that there were 13 cases of ALT/WDLPS (48.1%, 13/27), nine cases of DDLPS (33.3%, 9/27), three cases of MLPS (11.1%, 3/27), and two cases of pleomorphic liposarcoma (7.4%, 2/27). IHC analysis revealed that 26 cases were MDM2-positive (96.3%, 26/27), 22 were CDK4-positive (81.5%, 22/27), 26 were P16-positive (96.3%, 26/27), and 27 were cyclin D1-positive (100%, 27/27). FISH analysis revealed 20 cases of MDM2 positivity (90.9%, 20/22) and one case of DDIT3 positivity (50%, 1/2). The clinical outcomes were available for 21 patients. Four patients died (4/21, 19.0%), five experienced recurrence (5/21, 23.8%), and 12 (12/21, 57.1%) survived with no other disease. Conclusion: A combined IHC examination of the four indicators may be used to diagnose ALT/WDLPS and DDLPS, and FISH is recommended as an important supporting method.
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.