Priya Bhosale1, Jieqi Wang, Datla Varma, Corey Jensen, Madhavi Patnana, Wei Wei, Anil Chauhan, Barry Feig, Shreyaskumar Patel, Neeta Somaiah, Tara Sagebiel. 1. From the *Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; †University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY; ‡Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; §Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; and Departments of ∥Surgical Oncology, and ¶Sarcoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of computed tomography (CT) to differentiate an atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) from a WDLPS with a dedifferentiated component (DDLPS) within it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine untreated patients with abdominal atypical lipomatous tumors/well-differentiated liposarcomas who had undergone contrast-enhanced CT were identified using an institutional database. Three radiologists who were blinded to the pathology findings evaluated all the images independently to determine whether a dedifferentiated component was present within the WDLPS. The CT images were evaluated for fat content (≤25% or >25%); presence of ground-glass density, enhancing and/or necrotic nodules; presence of a capsule surrounding the mass; septations; and presence and pattern of calcifications. A multivariate logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations was used to correlate imaging features with pathology findings. Kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement between the three radiologists. RESULTS: On the basis of pathological findings, 12 patients had been diagnosed with DDLPS within a WDLPS and 37 had been diagnosed with WDLPS. The presence of an enhancing or a centrally necrotic nodule within the atypical lipomatous tumor was associated with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (P = 0.02 and P = 0.0003, respectively). The three readers showed almost perfect agreement in overall diagnosis (κ r = 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: An enhancing or centrally necrotic nodule may be indicative of a dedifferentiated component in well-differentiated liposarcoma. Ground-glass density nodules may not be indicative of dedifferentiation.
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of computed tomography (CT) to differentiate an atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) from a WDLPS with a dedifferentiated component (DDLPS) within it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine untreated patients with abdominal atypical lipomatous tumors/well-differentiated liposarcomas who had undergone contrast-enhanced CT were identified using an institutional database. Three radiologists who were blinded to the pathology findings evaluated all the images independently to determine whether a dedifferentiated component was present within the WDLPS. The CT images were evaluated for fat content (≤25% or >25%); presence of ground-glass density, enhancing and/or necrotic nodules; presence of a capsule surrounding the mass; septations; and presence and pattern of calcifications. A multivariate logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations was used to correlate imaging features with pathology findings. Kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement between the three radiologists. RESULTS: On the basis of pathological findings, 12 patients had been diagnosed with DDLPS within a WDLPS and 37 had been diagnosed with WDLPS. The presence of an enhancing or a centrally necrotic nodule within the atypical lipomatous tumor was associated with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (P = 0.02 and P = 0.0003, respectively). The three readers showed almost perfect agreement in overall diagnosis (κ r = 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: An enhancing or centrally necrotic nodule may be indicative of a dedifferentiated component in well-differentiated liposarcoma. Ground-glass density nodules may not be indicative of dedifferentiation.
Authors: M Toulmonde; S Bonvalot; P Méeus; E Stoeckle; O Riou; N Isambert; E Bompas; M Jafari; C Delcambre-Lair; E Saada; A Le Cesne; C Le Péchoux; J Y Blay; S Piperno-Neumann; C Chevreau; J O Bay; V Brouste; P Terrier; D Ranchère-Vince; A Neuville; A Italiano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A Italiano; M Toulmonde; A Cioffi; N Penel; N Isambert; E Bompas; F Duffaud; A Patrikidou; B Lortal; A Le Cesne; J-Y Blay; R G Maki; G K Schwartz; C R Antonescu; S Singer; J-M Coindre; B Bui Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J A Livingston; D Bugano; A Barbo; H Lin; J E Madewell; W L Wang; A J Lazar; W W Tseng; C L Roland; B W Feig; R Pollock; A P Conley; R S Benjamin; S Patel; N Somaiah Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Amanda Parkes; Elizabeth Urquiola; Priya Bhosale; Heather Lin; Kelsey Watson; Wei-Lien Wang; Barry Feig; Keila Torres; Christina L Roland; Anthony P Conley; Maria Zarzour; J Andrew Livingston; Ravin Ratan; Joseph Ludwig; Dejka M Araujo; Vinod Ravi; Robert S Benjamin; Shreyaskumar Patel; Neeta Somaiah Journal: Sarcoma Date: 2020-05-29