Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 181–192 | Cite as

Primary anatomical site, adjuvant therapy, and other prognostic variables for dedifferentiated liposarcoma

  • Jonathan GooteeEmail author
  • Sarah Aurit
  • Christina Curtin
  • Peter Silberstein
Original Article – Cancer Research



Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) is a high-grade, clinically aggressive tumor associated with low survival probabilities. Prognostic variables for DDLPS have not been previously reported in a large patient population.


A total of 3573 patients with primary DDLPS were analyzed from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). The 5- and 10-year survival probabilities were calculated, and the groups were compared using log-rank comparisons and multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis. Median survival was also calculated.


Males comprised 65% of the cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 64 years of age, and 65.4% of the patients were between 51 and 75 years of age. The most common site for primary tumors is the retroperitoneum or abdomen (59.5%). Head or neck tumors had the best 5-year outcomes (86.4%) followed by extremities (67.1%), pelvis (65.8%), thorax or trunk (58.9%), and finally retroperitoneum or abdomen (42.6%). Best outcomes were noted in the 26- to 50-year-old age group (5-year survival:66.8%), < 10 cm size (5-year survival:66.1%), FNCLCC grade 1 (5-year survival:69.2%), and stage II disease (5-year survival:66.7%). Radiation therapy yielded the best 5-year and 10-year survival probabilities of 59% and 39.3%, respectively. Out of all the adjuvant therapies, the use of radiation resulted in the best 5-year survival of 63.4%.


In the largest and most comprehensive study to date on DDLPS, major findings include primary site as a significant prognostic variable with age at presentation, sex, tumor stage, and type of adjuvant therapy significantly impacting overall survival.


Dedifferentiated liposarcoma Liposarcoma Anatomical site Survivorship NCDB 



This manuscript had no funding sources.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


  1. Brennan M, Antonescu C, Maki R (2013) Management of soft tissue sarcoma. New York, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  2. Cesne AL, Ouali M, Leahy MG et al (2014) Doxorubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma: pooled analysis of two STBSG-EORTC phase III clinical trials. Ann Oncol 25(12):2425–2432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dantey K, Schoedel K, Yergiyev O, Bartlett D, Rao U (2017) Correlation of histological grade of dedifferentiation with clinical outcome in 55 patients with dedifferentiated liposarcomas. Hum Pathol 66:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Engström K, Bergh P, Gustafson P et al (2008) Liposarcoma Cancer 113(7):1649–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldblum J, Enzinger F, Folpe A, Weiss S (2014) Enzinger and Weiss’s soft tissue tumors (6th ed.). Philadelphia, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  6. Henricks WH, Chu YC, Goldblum JR, Weiss SW (1997) Dedifferentiated liposarcoma: a clinicopathological analysis of 155 cases with a proposal for an expanded definition of dedifferentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 21:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Knebel C, Lenze U, Pohlig F et al (2017) Prognostic factors and outcome of Liposarcoma patients: a retrospective evaluation over 15 years. BMC Cancer 17(1):410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lahat G, Anaya D, Wang A et al (2008) Resectable well-differentiated versus dedifferentiated liposarcomas: two different diseases possibly requiring different treatment approaches. Ann Surg Oncol 15(6):1585–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Livingston J, Bugano D, Barbo A et al (2017) Role of chemotherapy in dedifferentiated liposarcoma of the retroperitoneum: defining the benefit and challenges of the standard. Sci Rep 7(1):11836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mangham D (2004) World Health Organisation classification of tumours: Pathology and genetics of tumours of soft tissue and bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(3):466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mussi C, Collini P, Miceli R et al (2008) The prognostic impact of dedifferentiation in retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Cancer 113(7):1657–1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Sullivan B, Davis AM, Turcotte R et al (2002) Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2235–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thway KL, Jones RB, Noujaim J, Zaidi S, Miah A, Fisher C (2016) Dedifferentiated liposarcoma: updates on morphology, genetics, and therapeutic strategies. Adv Anat Pathol 23(1):30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tirumani SH, Tirumani H, Jagannathan JP et al (2015) Metastasis in dedifferentiated liposarcoma: predictors and outcome in 148 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(7):899–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Creighton University School of MedicineOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Clinical Research and Evaluative SciencesCreighton University School of MedicineOmahaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineCreighton University Medical CenterOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations