Clinical outcome in patients with peripherally-sited atypical lipomatous tumours and dedifferentiated liposarcoma

UK guidelines for the management of soft tissue sarcomas

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare tumours arising in mesenchymal tissues and can occur almost anywhere in the body. Their rarity, and the heterogeneity of subtype and location, means that developing evidence-based guidelines is complicated by the limitations of the data available. This makes it more important that STS are managed by expert multidisciplinary teams, to ensure consistent and optimal treatment, recruitment to clinical trials, and the ongoing accumulation of further data and knowledge. The development of appropriate guidance, by an experienced panel referring to the evidence available, is therefore a useful foundation on which to build progress in the field. These guidelines are an update of the previous versions published in 2010 and 2016 [1, 2]. The original guidelines were drawn up by a panel of UK sarcoma specialists convened under the auspices of the British Sarcoma Group (BSG) and were intended to provide a framework for the multidisciplinary care of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. This iteration of the guidance, as well as updating the general multidisciplinary management of soft tissue sarcoma, includes specific sections relating to the management of sarcomas at defined anatomical sites: gynaecological sarcomas, retroperitoneal sarcomas, breast sarcomas, and skin sarcomas. These are generally managed collaboratively by site specific multidisciplinary teams linked to the regional sarcoma specialist team, as stipulated in the recently published sarcoma service specification [3]. In the UK, any patient with a suspected soft tissue sarcoma should be referred to a specialist regional soft tissues sarcoma service, to be managed by a specialist sarcoma multidisciplinary team. Once the diagnosis has been confirmed using appropriate imaging and a tissue biopsy, the main modality of management is usually surgical excision performed by a specialist surgeon, combined with pre- or post-operative radiotherapy for tumours at higher risk for local recurrence. Systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) may be utilised in cases where the histological subtype is considered more sensitive to systemic treatment. Regular follow-up is recommended to assess local control, development of metastatic disease, and any late effects of treatment.

Adjuvant Radiation after Primary Resection of Atypical Lipomatous Tumors of the Extremity Reduces Local Recurrence but Increases Complications: A Multicenter Evaluation

Background

Radiation after resection of an atypical lipomatous tumor (ALT) is controversial. This study evaluates local control and complications after the first resection of ALTs of the extremity with or without adjuvant radiation.

Methods

A dual institution, retrospective review of patients treated from 1995 to 2020 with first-time resection of an ALT in the extremity was performed. In total, 102 patients underwent adjuvant radiation (XRT group) and 68 patients were treated with surgery alone (no-XRT group). The median follow-up time was 4.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0–7.3 years). The median radiation dose was 60 Gy (IQR 55–66 Gy). Univariable and multivariable analyses evaluated the association of patient, tumor, and treatment variables with recurrence and complications. Kaplan–Meier analysis evaluated local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and time to complication.

Results

The overall incidence of local recurrence was 1% (1/102) in the XRT group and 24% (16/68) in the no-XRT group (p < 0.001). The median time-to-recurrence was 8.2 years (IQR 6.5–10.5 years). In the XRT and the no-XRT groups, 5-yr LRFS was 98% and 92% (p=0.21) and 10-yr LRFS was 98% and 41% (p < 0.001), respectively. The absence of radiation (HR = 23.63, 95% CI (3.09–180.48); p < 0.001) and R2 surgical resection margins (HR = 11.04, 95% CI (2.07–59.03); p < 0.001) incurred a 23-fold and 11-fold increased risk of local recurrence, respectively, while tumor size, depth, location, and neurovascular involvement were not found to be independent predictors of recurrence. The complication rate was 37% (38/102) in the XRT group and 10% (7/68) in the no-XRT group (p < 0.001). Eight patients (8/102, 8%) required surgical management for complication in the XRT group compared with two patients (2/68, 3%) in the no-XRT group (p=0.10). Higher radiation dose had a modest correlation with increased severity of complication (ρ=0.24; p=0.02).

Conclusions

Adjuvant radiation after first-time resection of an ALT of the extremity was associated with a significantly reduced risk of local recurrence but a three-fold increase in complication rate. These data support a 10-year follow-up for these patients and inform a notable clinical trade-off if considering adjuvant radiation for this tumor with recurrent potential.

Resection Status Does Not Impact Recurrence in Well-Differentiated Liposarcoma of the Extremity

BACKGROUND

Well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) is a low-grade soft tissue sarcoma with a propensity for local recurrence. The necessity of obtaining microscopically free surgical margins (R0) to minimize local recurrence is not clear. This study evaluates recurrence-free survival (RFS) of extremity WDLPS in relation to resection margin status.

METHODS

A retrospective review of adult patients with primary extremity WDLPS at seven US institutions from 2000 to 2016 was performed. Patients with recurrent tumors or incomplete resection (R2) were excluded. Clinicopathologic factors were analyzed to assess impact on local RFS.

RESULTS

97 patients with primary extremity WDLPS were identified. The majority of patients had deep, lower extremity tumors. Mean tumor size was 18.2±8.9cm. Patients were treated with either radical (76.3%) or excisional (23.7%) resections; 64% had R0 and 36% had microscopically positive (R1) resection margins. Ten patients received radiation therapy with no difference in receipt of radiation between R0 vs R1 groups. Thirteen patients (13%) developed a local recurrence with no difference in RFS between R0 vs R1 resection. Five-year RFS was 59.5% for R0 vs 85.2% for R1. Only one patient died of disease after developing dedifferentiation and distant metastasis despite originally having an R0 resection.

DISCUSSION

In this large multi-institutional study of surgical resection of extremity WDLPS, microscopically positive margins were not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Positive microscopic margin resection for extremity WDLPS may yield similar rates of local control while avoiding a radical approach to obtain microscopically negative margins.

Atypical Lipomatous Tumors: Does Our Inconsistent Terminology Have Patient Repercussions? Results of a Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Misnaming low-grade lipomatous tumors poses a clinical and medicolegal challenge, potentially subjecting patients to expensive and unnecessary surgeries. The terms atypical lipomatous tumor (ALT) and "well-differentiated" liposarcoma (WDL) have been used interchangeably in pathology reports, scholarly works and consensus recommendations, creating vagaries between low-virulence extremity tumors and retroperitoneal disease with metastatic potential.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on all studies that reported on the local recurrence rate and metastasis of ALTs and WDLs in living human subjects. Local recurrence and metastases were compared using Fisher's Exact Test.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies evaluated ALTs (n=936), whereas 13 studied WDLs (n=626). Mean follow-up was 6.6±2.0 years (median, 7.0 y). No metastatic disease was observed among ALTs, whereas 15 patients with WDLs (2.7%, P<0.0001) had metastases. The local recurrence rate of ALTs was significantly lower than WDLs after both marginal (15.1%, 141/936 vs. 46.0%, 288/626, P<0.0001) and wide excisions (3.3%, 2/59 in ALT vs. 17.4%, 19/109, P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

ALT should be reserved for extremity lesions meeting appropriate histopathologic criteria that represent nonmetastatic disease, reducing over-diagnosis, over-treatment, and patient risk.

Analysis of Dedifferentiated Liposarcomas Emphasizing the Diagnostic Dilemmas

Introduction: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) is defined as a progression of well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) to another nonlipogenic sarcoma. Since a variety of heterologous sarcomas can be encountered in dedifferentiation, clinical dilemmas arise. The present study analyzed the role of clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) features in the diagnosis of DDLPS and its differentiation from mimics. Materials and Methods: A retrospective and prospective study was conducted wherein all cases of liposarcoma from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. DDLPS cases were identified among pleomorphic lesions. Clinical and histopathological details for these cases were retrieved from medical records section and department archives. Histomorphology and immunohistochemistry (MDM2, S100, and Ki-67) were analyzed for these cases. Results: Among 37 cases of liposarcomas reviewed, DDLPS was diagnosed in 12 cases (32.4%). Mean age of the patients was 54.3 years with equal gender distribution (M:F =1:1.2). Two patients had recurrent tumors. Most were retroperitoneal (58.3%) with mean duration of symptoms being 8.7 months. Mean tumor dimension was 17.5 cm. High-grade dedifferentiated component was most common (83.3%) with only one case each (8.3%) of low-grade and homologous dedifferentiation. Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma was the frequent nonlipogenic sarcoma. MDM2 overexpression was detected in 100%, focal S100 positivity seen in 66.6%, and mean Ki-67 labeling index was 24. Conclusion: DDLPS exhibits aggressive clinical behavior. Adequate sampling, correlation to clinical details, demonstration of transition from WDLPS to DDLPS aid in narrowing the differentials. Immunostaining with MDM2 helps in definite categorization and S100 highlights lipoblasts, when they are not easily identifiable. MDM2, CDK4, and p16 IHC panel is recommended in all cases and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis where IHC is noncontributory.