PURPOSE: Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) has been regarded as the most common soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults. Yet its true nature and the validity of this diagnostic concept have increasingly been questioned. Available data suggest that most patients with MFH can be subclassified into specific STS types, but the clinical relevance of such categorization has been argued. In a retrospective study, we reclassified 100 tumors of the extremity and trunk wall primarily diagnosed as MFH and analyzed the outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were adults (median age, 70 years; range, 32 to 94 years). The median tumor size was 8 cm (range, 1 to 30 cm), and the thigh was the most common tumor location (n = 31). Median follow-up was 8 years (range, 3 to 16 years). The overall 5-year metastasis-free survival rate was 0.64. The tumors were reanalyzed histologically, immunohistochemically, and, where available, ultrastructurally, and were classified according to strict diagnostic criteria. Patients were staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer system, and prognoses were compared among different groups of the reclassified diagnoses, paying special attention to myogenic tumors. RESULTS: In 84 of 100 tumors, a specific line of differentiation was either proved or strongly suggested. The most common diagnoses were myxofibrosarcoma (n = 22) and leiomyosarcoma (n = 20). Overall, 30 tumors could be grouped as some form of myogenic sarcoma. These tumors had a worse prognosis, even within the same American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, and a shorter time to metastasis than nonmyogenic tumors. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study confirms that most so-called MFH can be subclassified by defined criteria; it provides evidence that such classification is clinically important. Specifically, pleomorphic STS showing myogenic differentiation are significantly more aggressive, a finding that allows planning future therapeutic trials.
PURPOSE:Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) has been regarded as the most common soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults. Yet its true nature and the validity of this diagnostic concept have increasingly been questioned. Available data suggest that most patients with MFH can be subclassified into specific STS types, but the clinical relevance of such categorization has been argued. In a retrospective study, we reclassified 100 tumors of the extremity and trunk wall primarily diagnosed as MFH and analyzed the outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were adults (median age, 70 years; range, 32 to 94 years). The median tumor size was 8 cm (range, 1 to 30 cm), and the thigh was the most common tumor location (n = 31). Median follow-up was 8 years (range, 3 to 16 years). The overall 5-year metastasis-free survival rate was 0.64. The tumors were reanalyzed histologically, immunohistochemically, and, where available, ultrastructurally, and were classified according to strict diagnostic criteria. Patients were staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer system, and prognoses were compared among different groups of the reclassified diagnoses, paying special attention to myogenic tumors. RESULTS: In 84 of 100 tumors, a specific line of differentiation was either proved or strongly suggested. The most common diagnoses were myxofibrosarcoma (n = 22) and leiomyosarcoma (n = 20). Overall, 30 tumors could be grouped as some form of myogenic sarcoma. These tumors had a worse prognosis, even within the same American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, and a shorter time to metastasis than nonmyogenic tumors. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study confirms that most so-called MFH can be subclassified by defined criteria; it provides evidence that such classification is clinically important. Specifically, pleomorphic STS showing myogenic differentiation are significantly more aggressive, a finding that allows planning future therapeutic trials.
Authors: Pawel Kurzawa; John T Mullen; Yen-Lin Chen; Sarah E Johnstone; Vikram Deshpande; Ivan Chebib; G P Nielsen Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Anne M Mills; Andrew H Beck; Kelli D Montgomery; Shirley X Zhu; Inigo Espinosa; Cheng-Han Lee; Subbaya Subramanian; Christopher D Fletcher; Matt van de Rijn; Robert B West Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Tomoyo Okada; Ann Y Lee; Li-Xuan Qin; Narasimhan Agaram; Takahiro Mimae; Yawei Shen; Rachael O'Connor; Miguel A López-Lago; Amanda Craig; Martin L Miller; Phaedra Agius; Evan Molinelli; Nicholas D Socci; Aimee M Crago; Fumi Shima; Chris Sander; Samuel Singer Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Abbas Agaimy; Andreas Gaumann; Josef Schroeder; Wolfgang Dietmaier; Arndt Hartmann; Ferdinand Hofstaedter; Peter H Wünsch; Thomas Mentzel Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Katinka Rüping; Annelore Altendorf-Hofmann; Yuan Chen; Eric Kampmann; Sebastian Gibis; Lars Lindner; Detlef Katenkamp; Iver Petersen; Thomas Knösel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jeffrey K Mito; Richard F Riedel; Leslie Dodd; Guy Lahat; Alexander J Lazar; Rebecca D Dodd; Lars Stangenberg; William C Eward; Francis J Hornicek; Sam S Yoon; Brian E Brigman; Tyler Jacks; Dina Lev; Sayan Mukherjee; David G Kirsch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240