| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Radiation Oncology Journal > Volume 40(4); 2022 > Article
Yu: Myxoid liposarcoma: a well-defined clinical target variant in radiotherapy for soft tissue sarcoma
Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies originating from mesenchymal tissues that show even more diverse characteristics than those originating from epithelial tissues [1]. Despite the diverse histological types of STS, these are generally managed and researched as uniform diseases due to their rarity, except for several unique histologic subtypes [2,3]. Nevertheless, the distinct characteristics, variety of treatment responses, and differences in oncologic outcomes between the subtypes of STS, strongly suggest the need for patient- and/or subtype-specific customized treatment approaches [1].
The efficacy of radiotherapy (RT) in resectable STS on reducing local recurrence has been quite clearly confirmed in meta-analysis [4]. Additionally, preoperative RT was significantly more advantageous than postoperative RT in terms of local control rate either in retroperitoneal sarcomas or sarcomas of other sites. This beneficial effect on the local control of preoperative RT in STS is highlighted even more in view of its’ lower radiation dose, small target volume, and reducing long-term toxicities, including fibrosis, edema, and joint stiffness. Furthermore, preoperative RT may prevent tumor seeding during surgical management, and thicken and eliminate or minimize viable tumor cells in the pseudocapsule, which can be used as a reference for resection to achieve wider surgical margins [5].
Despite the proven advantages of preoperative RT in STS, the objective response rate is quite limited, at approximately 25% (range, 0% to 50%) in actual clinical practice, except for myxoid liposarcoma (MLS) [6]. Considering that definite surgical resection is planned and unnecessary resection of the surrounding normal organs should be minimized, it is clear that the change in tumor volume itself is also one of the crucial outcomes that cannot be ignored in the management of STS [7]. The importance of tumor volume response could be particularly emphasized for locally advanced unresectable sarcomas [8].
MLS is one of the five types of liposarcomas according to the 2020 World Health Organization classification [1]. MLS is clearly distinguished from the other subtypes of liposarcoma by the presence of the pathognomonic fusion gene FUS-DDIT3 (also known as TLS-CHOP) or less often, as much as 10%, ESWR1-DDIT3 [9], although the variability of the fusion gene transcript is not associated with clinical outcome [10]. MLS also shows unique clinical features, like occur more younger age, and mostly in the thigh rather than the retroperitoneum, and metastasize to sites other than the lungs, including soft tissue or bone [11]. The most notable difference is that, unlike other subtypes of sarcoma, including other types of liposarcomas, which are generally considered resistant to radiotherapy, MLS is much more sensitive to RT. One explanation for the higher RT responsiveness of MLS is that the mutant fusion proteins containing DDIT3 fail to allow growth arrest in response to radiation [12].
According to the results of the study by Boxberg et al. [6], when preoperative RT was performed in STS, the volume of residual viable tumor was 15% (range, 3% to 60%) in MLS, which was numerically lower than that of other sarcoma subtypes. Pitson et al. [13] reported that there was almost no decrease in tumor volume in malignant fibrous histiocytoma, whereas a statistically significant decrease in MLS was observed after 50 Gy in 25 fractions of preoperative RT. This higher RT sensitivity of MLS is also directly correlated with an excellent local control rate compared to other subtypes after RT and complete surgical resection. Chung et al. [12] reported 97.7% for MLS compared with 89.6% for other subtypes of STS (p = 0.008) in terms of 5-year local recurrence-free survival after surgical resection with preoperative or postoperative RT. As mentioned earlier, this high RT responsiveness of MLS is a very important feature that can further elevate the role of preoperative RT, especially in patients with very large tumor size.
Recently, Lee et al. [14] reported an interesting article in the Radiation Oncology Journal on volume reduction and short-term surgical outcomes in large-sized MLS after 50 Gy over 25 fractions of preoperative RT, in which 24 patients were analyzed by dividing them into two groups based on the pretreatment tumor size of 10 cm. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of volume reduction, with a mean percentage of 56.3% (range, 22.4% to 90.9%) in the large compared with 64.5% (range, -18.4% to 91.7%) in the small tumor group. Interestingly, these figures of proportional reduction rate of MLS are similar to the 59% of the previous study results of Pitson et al. [13], which increases the reliability of the MLS showing a high objective response regardless of tumor size after RT. In addition, there was a tendency for a higher rate of major wound complications in the pre-RT large tumor group, which is thought to have a larger radiation-irradiated volume of normal tissue, but operative duration was found to have a greater correlation with the post-RT tumor size than the pre-RT tumor size. In fact, the higher incidence of postoperative wound complications that were found to be significantly higher in preoperative RT over postoperative RT is the main reason for avoiding the addition of preoperative RT in real-world clinical practice [4]. Although a significant decrease in wound complications was not observed in the study by Lee et al. [14], the reduction in resected tissue could reduce the risk of wound complications. This point may be more important, especially in radiosensitive MLS, in that the local control rate is sufficiently satisfactory even after limited resection following preoperative RT [15].
Recently, the Dose Reduction of Preoperative Radiotherapy in Myxoid Liposarcoma (DOREMY) trial, a prospective single arm phase II study, showed favorable clinical outcomes of 100% local control after median follow-up time of 25 months after 36 Gy over 18 fractions of preoperative intensity-modulated RT [16]. Based on the dose de-intensification in MLS compared to conventional preoperative RT using mainly 50 Gy, relatively low 17% of wound complication requiring intervention were also reported in this study. Furthermore, this reduced, moderate dose of preoperative RT showed favorable outcomes in terms of resectability improvement and tumor volume reduction as median value of 60% (interquartile range, 74 to 41) in a subgroup study of some patients enrolled in the DOREMY trial [17]. Additional large-scale studies focusing on the optimal radiation dose, and time interval between the completion of RT and surgical resection, considering postoperative wound complications as well as tumor response, will be needed in MLS.
The study by Lee et al. [14] had several important limitations, including a small sample size and retrospective design as the authors admitted. However, it provides valuable clinical information to compare the RT response and postoperative wound complications of large MLS with small MLS, which remains a concern for experts in this field through consistent treatment of relatively rare tumors. In MLS, which shows a markedly different, well-defined RT response from other subtypes of STS, and satisfactory local control through preoperative RT and surgical resection, continuous researches should be necessary focus on the reduction of postoperative wound complications through the modification of radiation dose, duration of RT and surgery interval, and extent of surgical resection in the future.


Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


1. Sbaraglia M, Bellan E, Dei Tos AP. The 2020 WHO classification of soft tissue tumours: news and perspectives. Pathologica 2021;113:70–84.
crossref pmid
2. Inan GA, Aral IP, Arslan SA, Tezcan Y. Palliative treatment of Kaposi sarcoma with radiotherapy: a single center experience. Radiat Oncol J 2021;39:41–7.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
3. von Mehren M, Kane JM, Agulnik M, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma, Version 2.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022;20:815–33.
4. Albertsmeier M, Rauch A, Roeder F, et al. External beam radiation therapy for resectable soft tissue sarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:754–67.
crossref pmid pdf
5. Waldvogel NJ, Tepper SC, Lee L, et al. Neoadjuvant radiation influences the pseudocapsule in soft tissue sarcoma: a histopathologic and radiographic evaluation. Surg Oncol 2022;44:101828.
crossref pmid
6. Boxberg M, Langer R, Woertler K, et al. Neoadjuvant radiation in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas: histopathologic features and response evaluation. Am J Surg Pathol 2022;46:1060–70.
crossref pmid
7. Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, et al. Combined assessment of metabolic and volumetric changes for assessment of tumor response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1579–84.
crossref pmid
8. Spunt SL, Hill DA, Motosue AM, et al. Clinical features and outcome of initially unresected nonmetastatic pediatric nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3225–35.
crossref pmid
9. Kubo T, Matsui Y, Naka N, et al. Specificity of fusion genes in adipocytic tumors. Anticancer Res 2010;30:661–4.
10. Antonescu CR, Tschernyavsky SJ, Decuseara R, et al. Prognostic impact of P53 status, TLS-CHOP fusion transcript structure, and histological grade in myxoid liposarcoma: a molecular and clinicopathologic study of 82 cases. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:3977–87.
11. Lee AT, Thway K, Huang PH, Jones RL. Clinical and molecular spectrum of liposarcoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:151–9.
crossref pmid
12. Chung PW, Deheshi BM, Ferguson PC, et al. Radiosensitivity translates into excellent local control in extremity myxoid liposarcoma: a comparison with other soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer 2009;115:3254–61.
crossref pmid
13. Pitson G, Robinson P, Wilke D, et al. Radiation response: an additional unique signature of myxoid liposarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:522–6.
crossref pmid
14. Lee LH, Tepper S, Owen G, et al. Radiotherapy, volume reduction, and short-term surgical outcomes in the treatment of large myxoid liposarcomas. Radiat Oncol J 2022;40:172–9.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
15. Perera JR, AlFaraidy M, Ibe I, et al. Intermuscular extremity myxoid liposarcoma can be managed by marginal resection following neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2022;Sep 27 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2022.09.008.
16. Lansu J, Bovee JV, Braam P, et al. Dose reduction of preoperative radiotherapy in myxoid liposarcoma: a nonrandomized controlled trial. JAMA Oncol 2021;7:e205865.
crossref pmid
17. Lansu J, Braam PM, van Werkhoven E, et al. A moderate dose of preoperative radiotherapy may improve resectability in myxoid liposarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47:2633–9.
crossref pmid
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
ePub Link  ePub Link
XML Download  XML Download
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
CrossRef TDM  CrossRef TDM
Related article
Editorial Office
Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital,
Hamchun Hall, 6F, 95 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03082, Republic of Korea
Tel : +82-2-743-6574
E-mail: roj@kosro.or.kr
Copyright © The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology.                      Developed in M2PI
Close layer
prev next