Diagnostic Utility and Limitations of Immunohistochemistry of p16, CDK4, and MDM2 and Automated Dual-color In Situ Hybridization of MDM2 for the Diagnosis of Challenging Cases of Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma
Authors:
- 1 November 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology
- Vol. 27 (10) , 758-763
Abstract
The diagnosis of dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) is challenging when an atypical lipomatous tumor component is absent or obscure. To analyze the utility and limitations of ancillary techniques, we studied 11 cases of DDLPS in challenging conditions and 17 cases of nonlipogenic high-grade sarcomas with immunohistochemistry (IHC) for p16, CDK4, and MDM2 and automated dual-color in situ hybridization (DISH) for MDM2 amplification. All DDLPS specimens lacked clear lipogenic components and were immunoreactive for p16, CDK4, and MDM2. DISH analyses also revealed high-level amplification of MDM2 in all DDLPS. In contrast, among nonlipogenic sarcomas, p16, CDK4, and MDM2 were expressed in 8, 9, and 3 cases, respectively. MDM2 amplification was detected in 3 of 8 studied. The MDM2-amplified tumors were the same as the MDM2-immunoreactive tumors. After careful reevaluation of these 3 sarcomas, 2 were reclassified as DDLPS because small areas of lipogenic components were detected in the original specimens. The respective sensitivities and specificities of these markers were as follows: p16 IHC (100% and 60%), CDK4 IHC (100% and 53.3%), MDM2 IHC (100% and 93.3%), and MDM2 DISH (100% and 83.3%). The results of MDM2 IHC completely coincided with those of MDM2 DISH. The present study confirmed the substantial utility of MDM2 IHC and MDM2 DISH in the diagnosis of DDLPS, especially when lipogenic components were indistinct compared with IHC for p16 and CDK4. Furthermore, automated DISH was more practical than fluorescent in situ hybridization.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Liposarcomas: diagnostic pitfalls and new insightsHistopathology, 2013
- Diagnostic Utility of p16, CDK4, and MDM2 as an Immunohistochemical Panel in Distinguishing Well-differentiated and Dedifferentiated Liposarcomas From Other Adipocytic TumorsAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2012
- Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma With Meningothelial-like Whorls, Metaplastic Bone Formation, and CDK4, MDM2, and p16 ExpressionAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2011
- Fluorescence in situ hybridization for MDM2 gene amplification as a diagnostic tool in lipomatous neoplasmsLaboratory Investigation, 2008
- Detection of MDM2-CDK4 Amplification by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in 200 Paraffin-embedded Tumor Samples: Utility in Diagnosing Adipocytic Lesions and Comparison With Immunohistochemistry and Real-time PCRAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2007
- MDM2 and CDK4 Immunostainings Are Useful Adjuncts in Diagnosing Well-Differentiated and Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma SubtypesAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2005
- Inflammatory malignant fibrous histiocytomas and dedifferentiated liposarcomas: histological review, genomic profile, and MDM2 and CDK4 status favour a single entityThe Journal of Pathology, 2004
- Most Malignant Fibrous Histiocytomas Developed in the Retroperitoneum Are Dedifferentiated Liposarcomas: A Review of 25 Cases Initially Diagnosed as Malignant Fibrous HistiocytomaLaboratory Investigation, 2003
- DISTINCT mdm2/p53 EXPRESSION PATTERNS IN LIPOSARCOMA SUBGROUPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT PATHOGENETIC MECHANISMSThe Journal of Pathology, 1997
- MDM2 gene amplification in bone and soft‐tissue tumors: Association with tumor progression in differentiated adipose‐tissue tumorsInternational Journal of Cancer, 1995