Top

Diagnostic Pathology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Lipoma | Research

Expression of FRS2 in atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma: an immunohistochemical analysis of 182 cases with genetic data

Authors: Wenyi Jing, Ting Lan, Yan Qiu, Ran Peng, Yang Lu, Huijiao Chen, Min Chen, Xin He, Chen Chen, Hongying Zhang

Published in: Diagnostic Pathology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The fibroblast growth factor receptor substrate 2 (FRS2) gene is located close to MDM2 and CDK4 within the 12q13-15 chromosomal region. FRS2 gene was recently found to be consistently amplified in atypical lipomatous tumor (ALT)/well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDL) and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDL), suggesting the detection of FRS2 amplification could be a diagnostic tool for ALT/WDL/DDLs. However, the expression of FRS2 protein and diagnostic value of FRS2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has not been evaluated in a large cohort of ALT/WDL/DDLs.

Methods

A SNOMED search of hospital surgical pathology files from January 2007 to July 2020 identified 182 ALT/WDL/DDLs with available materials. FRS2 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and IHC were performed on 182 ALT/WDL/DDLs and 64 control samples. The expression of FRS2 was also compared with that of classic immunomarkers (MDM2 and CDK4) of this tumor entity.

Results

This study included 91 ALT/WDLs and 91 DDLs. The FISH results showed 172 of 182 (94.5%) cases were FRS2-amplified, and 10 cases were FRS2-nonamplified. Immunostaining results showed 171 (94.0%) ALT/WDL/DDLs were positive for FRS2 and 11 cases (6.0%) were FRS2-immunonegative. In 172 FRS2-amplified cases, 166 (96.5%) were FRS2-immunopositive, and 6 (3.5%) were negative. Among 10 FRS2-nonamplified ALT/WDL/DDL cases, 5 cases were FRS2-immunonegative, and 5 tumors displayed 1+ staining for this marker. In 64 control cases, none of them exhibited FRS2 amplification. Forty-seven (73.5%) control cases were negative for FRS2 immunostaining, while 17 cases (26.5%) were FRS2-immunopositive. Fifteen of these false positive samples (15/17, 88.2%) showed 1+ positivity and only 2 cases (2/17, 11.8%) displayed 2+ positivity. In ALT/WDL/DDLs, the sensitivity of FRS2 immunostaining was slightly lower than MDM2 (FRS2 vs. MDM2: 94.0% vs 100.0%) and CDK4 (FRS2 vs. CDK4: 94.0% vs 97.0%). However, the specificity of FRS2 (73.5%) was slightly higher than that of MDM2 (67.8%) and CDK4 (64.4%).

Conclusion

This study indicated that FRS2 IHC had relatively good consistency with FRS2 FISH, suggesting that FRS2 immunostaining could be utilized as an additional screening tool for the diagnosis of ALT/WDL/DDL. It must be emphasized that MDM2/CDK4/FRS2 especially MDM2 FISH remains the gold standard and the most recommended method to diagnose this entity.

Sbaraglia M, Dei Tos AP, Pedeutour F. Atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma. In: WHO classification of Tumours editorial board, editor. WHO Classification of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020. p. 36–8.

Dei Tos AP, Marino-Enriquez A, Pedeutour F. Dedifferentiated liposarcoma. In: WHO classification of Tumours editorial board, editor. WHO Classification of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020. p. 39–41.

Goldblum JR, Folpe AL, Weiss SW. Liposarcoma. In: Goldblum JR, Folpe AL, Weiss SW, editors. Enzinger and Weiss's soft tissue tumors. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2014. p. 484–523.

Sandberg AA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: liposarcoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2004;155:1–24.CrossRef

Italiano A, Bianchini L, Keslair F, et al. HMGA2 is the partner of MDM2 in well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcomas whereas CDK4 belongs to a distinct inconsistent amplicon. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:2233–41.CrossRef

Erickson-Johnson MR, Seys AR, Roth CW, et al. Carboxypeptidase M: a biomarker for the discrimination of well-differentiated liposarcoma from lipoma. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1541–7.CrossRef

Weaver J, Downs-Kelly E, Goldblum JR, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for MDM2 gene amplification as a diagnostic tool in lipomatous neoplasms. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:943–9.CrossRef

Zhang H, Erickson-Johnson M, Wang X, et al. Molecular testing for lipomatous tumors: critical analysis and test recommendations based on the analysis of 405 extremity-based tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1304–11.CrossRef

Sirvent N, Coindre JM, Maire G, et al. 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 PCR. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:1476–89.CrossRef

10.

Binh MB, Sastre-Garau X, Guillou L, et al. MDM2 and CDK4 immunostainings are useful adjuncts in diagnosing well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcoma subtypes: a comparative analysis of 559 soft tissue neoplasms with genetic data. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1340–7.CrossRef

11.

Aleixo PB, Hartmann AA, Menezes IC, et al. Can MDM2 and CDK4 make the diagnosis of well differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma? An immunohistochemical study on 129 soft tissue tumours. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62:1127–35.CrossRef

12.

Thway K, Flora R, Shah C, et al. Diagnostic utility of p16, CDK4, and MDM2 as an immunohistochemical panel in distinguishing well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcomas from other adipocytic tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:462–9.CrossRef

13.

Kammerer-Jacquet SF, Thierry S, Cabillic F, et al. Differential diagnosis of atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma: utility of p16 in combination with MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol. 2017;59:34–40.CrossRef

14.

Wang X, Asmann YW, Erickson-Johnson MR, et al. High-resolution genomic mapping reveals consistent amplification of the fibroblast growth factor receptor substrate 2 gene in well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2011;50:849–58.CrossRef

15.

Zhang K, Chu K, Wu X, et al. Amplification of FRS2 and activation of FGFR/FRS2 signaling pathway in high-grade liposarcoma. Cancer Res. 2013;73:1298–307.CrossRef

16.

Jing W, Lan T, Chen H, et al. Amplification of FRS2 in atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma and de-differentiated liposarcoma: a clinicopathological and genetic study of 146 cases. Histopathology. 2018;72:1145–55.CrossRef

17.

Turner N, Grose R. Fibroblast growth factor signalling: from development to cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:116–29.CrossRef

18.

Coindre JM. Grading of soft tissue sarcomas: review and update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1448–53.CrossRef

19.

He X, Pang Z, Zhang X, et al. Consistent amplification of FRS2 and MDM2 in low-grade osteosarcoma: a genetic study of 22 cases with Clinicopathologic analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42:1143–55.CrossRef

20.

Li Z, Huang C, Bai S, et al. Prognostic evaluation of epidermal fatty acid-binding protein and calcyphosine, two proteins implicated in endometrial cancer using a proteomic approach. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:2377–83.CrossRef

21.

Dei Tos AP, Doglioni C, Piccinin S, et al. Coordinated expression and amplification of the MDM2, CDK4, and HMGI-C genes in atypical lipomatous tumours. J Pathol. 2000;190:531–6.CrossRef

22.

Clay MR, Martinez AP, Weiss SW, et al. MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemistry: should it be used in problematic differentiated Lipomatous tumors?: a new perspective. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1647–52.CrossRef

23.

Brimo F, Dion D, Huwait H, et al. The utility of MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemistry in needle biopsy interpretation of lipomatous tumours: a study of 21 Tru-cut biopsy cases. Histopathology. 2008;52:892–5.CrossRef

24.

Pilotti S, Della Torre G, Mezzelani A, et al. The expression of MDM2/CDK4 gene product in the differential diagnosis of well differentiated liposarcoma and large deep-seated lipoma. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1271–5.CrossRef

25.

Hung YP, Michal M, Dubuc AM, et al. Dysplastic lipoma: potential diagnostic pitfall of using MDM2 RNA in situ hybridization to distinguish between lipoma and atypical lipomatous tumor. Hum Pathol. 2020;101:53–7.CrossRef

26.

Kobayashi A, Sakuma T, Fujimoto M, et al. 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. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019;27:758–63.CrossRef

27.

Anderson WJ, Fletcher CDM, Jo VY. Atypical pleomorphic Lipomatous tumor: expanding our current understanding in a Clinicopathologic analysis of 64 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001706.

28.

Alshenawy H. Can HMGI-C be used as an aid with MDM2 and CDK4 to differentiate liposarcoma subtypes from their mimics? J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139:1073–81.CrossRef

29.

Ray-Coquard I, Blay JY, Italiano A, et al. Effect of the MDM2 antagonist RG7112 on the P53 pathway in patients with MDM2-amplified, well-differentiated or dedifferentiated liposarcoma: an exploratory proof-of-mechanism study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1133–40.CrossRef

30.

Bill KL, Garnett J, Meaux I, et al. SAR405838: a novel and potent inhibitor of the MDM2:p53 Axis for the treatment of dedifferentiated Liposarcoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:1150–60.CrossRef

31.

Dickson MA, Tap WD, Keohan ML, et al. Phase II trial of the CDK4 inhibitor PD0332991 in patients with advanced CDK4-amplified well-differentiated or dedifferentiated liposarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2024–8.CrossRef

32.

Dickson MA, Schwartz GK, Keohan ML, et al. Progression-free survival among patients with well-differentiated or dedifferentiated Liposarcoma treated with CDK4 inhibitor Palbociclib: a phase 2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:937–40.CrossRef

33.

Hanes R, Grad I, Lorenz S, et al. Preclinical evaluation of potential therapeutic targets in dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7:54583–95.CrossRef

34.

Hanes R, Munthe E, Grad I, et al. Preclinical evaluation of the Pan-FGFR inhibitor LY2874455 in FRS2-amplified Liposarcoma. Cells. 2019;8:189.

35.

Li Q, Alsaidan OA, Ma Y, et al. Pharmacologically targeting the myristoylation of the scaffold protein FRS2α inhibits FGF/FGFR-mediated oncogenic signaling and tumor progression. J Biol Chem. 2018;293:6434–48.CrossRef

Title: Expression of FRS2 in atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma: an immunohistochemical analysis of 182 cases with genetic data
Authors: Wenyi Jing
Ting Lan
Yan Qiu
Ran Peng
Yang Lu
Huijiao Chen
Min Chen
Xin He
Chen Chen
Hongying Zhang
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Lipoma
Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization
Lipoma
Liposarcoma
Published in: Diagnostic Pathology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1746-1596
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-021-01161-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Expression of FRS2 in atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma: an immunohistochemical analysis of 182 cases with genetic data

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Low GSTM3 expression is associated with poor disease‐free survival in resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Novel TNC-PDGFD fusion in fibrosarcomatous dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: a case report

Gastric mucin phenotype indicates aggressive biological behaviour in early differentiated gastric adenocarcinomas following endoscopic treatment

Clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas in hereditary papillary renal cell carcinoma (HPRCC) syndrome: a case report

From SARS-CoV-2 hematogenous spreading to endothelial dysfunction: clinical-histopathological study of cutaneous signs of COVID-19

Giant vascular eccrine spiradenoma: the first case in the scrotum and review of the literature author