Virchows Archiv

, Volume 461, Issue 5, pp 561–570 | Cite as

Malignant fibrous histiocytoma and fibrosarcoma of bone: a re-assessment in the light of currently employed morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular approaches

  • Salvatore Romeo
  • Judith V. M. G. Bovée
  • Herman M. Kroon
  • Roberto Tirabosco
  • Cristina Natali
  • Lucia Zanatta
  • Raf Sciot
  • Fredrik Mertens
  • Nick Athanasou
  • Marco Alberghini
  • Karoly Szuhai
  • Pancras C. W. Hogendoorn
  • Angelo Paolo Dei Tos
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) and fibrosarcoma (FS) of bone are rare malignant tumours and contentious entities. Sixty seven cases labelled as bone MFH (57) and bone FS (10) were retrieved from five bone tumour referral centres and reviewed to determine whether recent advances allowed for reclassification and identification of histological subgroups with distinct clinical behaviour. A panel of immunostains was applied: smooth muscle actin, desmin, h-caldesmon, cytokeratin AE1–AE3, CD31, CD34, CD68, CD163, CD45, S100 and epithelial membrane antigen. Additional fluorescence in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry were performed whenever appropriate. All cases were reviewed by six bone and soft tissue pathologists and a consensus was reached. Follow-up for 43 patients (median 42 months, range 6–223 months) was available. Initial histological diagnosis was reformulated in 18 cases (26.8 %). Seven cases were reclassified as leiomyosarcoma, six as osteosarcoma, three as myxofibrosarcoma and one each as embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma and interdigitating dendritic cell sarcoma. One case showed a peculiar biphasic phenotype with epithelioid nests and myofibroblastic spindle cells. Among the remaining 48 cases, which met the WHO criteria for bone FS and bone MFH, we identified five subgroups. Seven cases were reclassified as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and 11 as UPS with incomplete myogenic differentiation due to positivity for at least one myogenic marker. Six were reclassified as spindle cell sarcoma not otherwise specified. Among the remaining 24 cases, we identified a further two recurrent morphologic patterns: eight cases demonstrated a myoepithelioma-like phenotype and 16 cases a myofibroblastic phenotype. One of the myoepithelioma-like cases harboured a EWSR1–NFATC2 fusion. It appears that bone MFH and bone FS represent at best exclusion diagnoses.

Keywords

Bone neoplasm Fibrosarcoma of bone Malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone Classification 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Niero for her expert technical assistance and I. Carraretto for fruitful discussion. This study was funded by EuroBoNeT, a European Commission-granted European Network of excellence for studying the pathology and genetics of bone tumours.

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

428_2012_1306_MOESM2_ESM.xls (32 kb)
ESM 1 (XLS 31 kb)
428_2012_1306_Fig5_ESM.jpg (12 kb)
Supplementary figure

Among the patients without metastases at diagnosis, leiomyosarcomas and myxofibrosarcomas showed a trend to better overall survival in comparison to the remaining cases. A similar trend was observed for UPS with myogenic differentiation which had a slightly better prognosis as compared to UPS. (JPEG 12 kb)

428_2012_1306_MOESM1_ESM.tif (1.7 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 1726 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dei Tos AP (2006) Classification of pleomorphic sarcomas: where are we now? Histopathology 48(1):51–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahrami A, Folpe AL (2010) Adult-type fibrosarcoma: a reevaluation of 163 putative cases diagnosed at a single institution over a 48-year period. Am J Surg Pathol 34(10):1504–1513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F (2002) WHO Classification of tumours. Pathology & genetics of tumours of soft tissue and bone. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fletcher CDM (1992) Pleomorphic malignant fibrous histiocytoma: fact or fiction? A critical reappraisal based on 159 tumors diagnosed as pleomorphic sarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol 16:213–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antonescu CR, Zhang L, Chang NE, Pawel BR, Travis W, Katabi N et al (2010) EWSR1–POU5F1 fusion in soft tissue myoepithelial tumors. A molecular analysis of sixty-six cases, including soft tissue, bone, and visceral lesions, showing common involvement of the EWSR1 gene. Gene Chromosomes Canc 49(12):1114–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Szuhai K, Ijszenga M, de Jong D, Karseladze A, Tanke HJ, Hogendoorn PC (2009) The NFATc2 gene is involved in a novel cloned translocation in a Ewing sarcoma variant that couples its function in immunology to oncology. Clin Cancer Res 15(7):2259–2268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishida J, Sim FH, Wenger DE, Unni KK (1997) Malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone. A clinicopathologic study of 81 patients. Cancer 79(3):482–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antonescu CR, Erlandson RA, Huvos AG (1997) Primary leiomyosarcoma of bone: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural study of 33 patients and a literature review. Am J Surg Pathol 21(11):1281–1294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petra M, Gibbons CL, Athanasou NA (2002) Leiomyosarcoma of bone arising in association with a bone infarct. Sarcoma 6(1):47–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raymond AK, Ayala AG, Knuutila S (2002) Conventional osteosarcoma. In: Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of soft tissue and bone. IARC, Lyon, pp 264–270Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Angervall L, Kindblom LG, Merck C (1977) Myxofibrosarcoma. A study of 30 cases. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand A 85A(2):127–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss SW, Enzinger FM (1977) Myxoid variant of malignant fibrous histiocytoma. Cancer 39:1672–1685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mentzel T, Calonje E, Wadden C, Camplejohn RS, Beham A, Smith MA et al (1996) Myxofibrosarcoma. Clinicopathologic analysis of 75 cases with emphasis on the low-grade variant. Am J Surg Pathol 20(4):391–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fletcher CD, Gustafson P, Rydholm A, Willen H, Akerman M (2001) Clinicopathologic re-evaluation of 100 malignant fibrous histiocytomas: prognostic relevance of subclassification. J Clin Oncol 19(12):3045–3050PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verbeke SL, Fletcher CD, Alberghini M, Daugaard S, Flanagan AM, Parratt T et al (2010) A reappraisal of hemangiopericytoma of bone; analysis of cases reclassified as synovial sarcoma and solitary fibrous tumor of bone. Am J Surg Pathol 34(6):777–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ueda T, Araki N, Mano M, Myoui A, Joyama S, Ishiguro S et al (2002) Frequent expression of smooth muscle markers in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone. J Clin Pathol 55(11):853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erlandson RA, Antonescu CR (2004) The rise and fall of malignant fibrous histiocytoma. Ultrastruct Pathol 28(5–6):283–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antonescu CR, Erlandson RA, Huvos AG (2000) Primary fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone—a comparative ultrastructural study: evidence of a spectrum of fibroblastic differentiation. Ultrastruct Pathol 24(2):83–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montgomery E, Fisher C (2001) Myofibroblastic differentiation in malignant fibrous histiocytoma (pleomorphic myofibrosarcoma): a clinicopathological study. Histopathology 38(6):499–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernardo ME, Emons JA, Karperien M, Nauta AJ, Willemze R, Roelofs H et al (2007) Human mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow display a better chondrogenic differentiation compared with other sources. Connect Tissue Res 48(3):132–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mertens F, Romeo S, Bovée JVMG, Tirabosco R, Athanasou NA, Alberghini M et al (2011) Reclassification and subtyping of so-called malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone: comparison with cytogenetic features. Clin Sarcoma Res 1(1):10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maki RG, Wathen JK, Patel SR, Priebat DA, Okuno SH, Samuels B et al (2007) Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas: results of sarcoma alliance for research through collaboration study 002. J Clin Oncol 25(19):2755–2763 [corrected]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hensley ML, Maki R, Venkatraman E, Geller G, Lovegren M, Aghajanian C et al (2002) Gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with unresectable leiomyosarcoma: results of a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 20(12):2824–2831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Romeo
    • 1
  • Judith V. M. G. Bovée
    • 2
  • Herman M. Kroon
    • 3
  • Roberto Tirabosco
    • 4
  • Cristina Natali
    • 5
  • Lucia Zanatta
    • 1
  • Raf Sciot
    • 6
  • Fredrik Mertens
    • 7
  • Nick Athanasou
    • 8
  • Marco Alberghini
    • 9
  • Karoly Szuhai
    • 10
  • Pancras C. W. Hogendoorn
    • 2
  • Angelo Paolo Dei Tos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyTreviso Regional HospitalTrevisoItaly
  2. 2.Department of PathologyLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of PathologyRoyal National Orthopaedic HospitalLondonUK
  5. 5.Department of PathologyRovigo Regional HospitalRovigoItaly
  6. 6.Department of PathologyLeuven UniversityLeuvenBelgium
  7. 7.Department of Clinical GeneticsLund University HospitalLundSweden
  8. 8.Department of PathologyNuffield Orthopaedic CenterOxfordUK
  9. 9.Department of PathologyRizzoli Orthopaedic InstituteBolognaItaly
  10. 10.Department of Molecular Cell BiologyLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations