Well-Differentiated Liposarcoma of the Hypopharynx Exhibiting Myxoid Liposarcoma-like Morphology with MDM2 and DDIT3 Co-Amplification

Primary Sarcomas of the Larynx: A Case Series of Four Different Histopathologic Types

Primary laryngeal sarcomas are rare. Their nomenclature and classification are similar to soft tissue counterparts; however, there are notable differences between clinical presentation, behavior, treatment, and follow-up. There is sparse information regarding the clinical features, biologic behavior, and treatment modalities of laryngeal sarcomas. To increase our understanding about these tumors, we describe herein an additional series of four cases of different pathologic types of laryngeal sarcomas, including low-grade chondrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, well-differentiated liposarcoma, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Our main aim is to upsurge awareness about the morphologic variations of laryngeal sarcomas, to avoid potential pitfalls during histopathologic examination. It is essential to ensure that correct diagnosis, subclassification, and grading are achieved for proper guidance of treatment and clinical follow-up at multidisciplinary team meetings.

[Clinical value of fluorescence in situ hybridization with MDM2 and DDIT3 probe in diagnosis of liposarcoma]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of using MDM2 amplification probe and DDIT3 dual-color, break-apart rearrangement probe fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique in the diagnosis of liposarcoma.

METHODS

In the study, 62 cases of liposarcoma diagnosed in Peking University First Hospital from January 2015 to December 2019 were analysed for clinicopathological information. Of these 62 cases of liposarcoma, all were analysed for MDM2 amplification and 48 cases were analysed for DDIT3 rearrangement using a FISH technique. Our study aimed to evaluate the status of MDM2 and DDIT3 by FISH in liposarcoma and correlate it with diagnosis of different subtypes of liposarcoma. The subtypes of liposarcoma were classified according to the FISH results, combined with the relevant clinicopathological features.

RESULTS

The patients aged 31-89 years (mean: 59 years) with a 1.75:1 male to female ratio. Histologically, there were 20 cases of atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma (ALT/WDLPS), 26 cases of dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS), 13 myxoid liposarcoma (MLPS) and 3 pleomorphic liposarcoma (PLPS). Tumors with DDLPS (23/26) and WDLPS (8/20) were localized retroperitoneally, while both tumours of MLPS and PLPS were localized extra-retroperitoneally, and the difference of sites among the four subtypes of liposarcoma was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Histologically, varied mucoid matrix could be observed in the four subtypes of liposarcoma, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). MDM2 gene amplification was demonstrated in all cases of ALT/WDLPS and DDLPS (100%, 20/20 and 26/26 respectively); DDIT3 gene rearrangement was noted only in MLPS (100%, 13/13); most cases of DDLPS (96.2%, 25/26) and ALT/WDLPS (83.3%, 5/6, 6 cases selected for detection) demonstrated the picture of amplification of the DDIT3 telomeric tag. According to the instructions of DDIT3 break-apart rearrangement probe, the 5' telomere probe and 3' centromere probe spanned but did not cover the DDIT3 gene itself, on the contrary, the 5' telomere probe covered the CDK4 gene, while the DDIT3 and CDK4 gene were located adjacent to each other on chromosome, therefore, when the amplification signal appeared on the telomeric tag of the DDIT3 rearrangement probe, it indeed indicated the CDK4 gene amplification rather than the DDIT3 gene rearrangement. Then the 10 cases with DDIT3 telomeric tag amplification were selected for CDK4 and DDIT3 gene amplification probe FISH tests, and all the cases showed CDK4 gene amplification (100%, 10/10) and two of the 10 cases demonstrated co-amplification of CDK4 and DDIT3 (20%, 2/10); DDIT3 polysomy detected by DDIT3 gene rearrangement probe was found in 1 case of DDLPS and 2 cases of PLPS (66.7%, 2/3) with morphology of high-grade malignant tumour and poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that a diagnosis of different subtype liposarcoma could be confirmed based on the application of MDM2 and DDIT3 FISH, combined with clinicopathological findings. It is also noteworthy that atypical signals should be correctly interpreted to guide correct treatment of liposarcomas.