Tomonori Kawasaki1
Takuya Watanabe2Masataka Hirasaki3
Satoshi Kanno1Ryuzo Kawamura4Arisa Kokubo1Shinji Furuya5
Masanori Wako6
Jiro Ichikawa6*- 1Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Japan
- 2Department of Orthopaedic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Japan
- 3Department of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka, Japan
- 4Department of Chemistry, Saitama University, Sakura, Japan
- 5First Department of Surgery, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Japan
- 6Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Japan
A Commentary on
Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma of the adrenal gland: a case report and literature review
By Xiaochuan G, Wei Z, Chaoyong Y, Yu Z, Huayong J, Na Y, Xike L, Jian L and Yan W (2024) Front. Oncol. 14:1439357. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1439357
1 Introduction
Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), previously known as a malignant fibrous histiocytoma, is a type of pleomorphic sarcoma, including dedifferentiated liposarcoma and pleomorphic leiomyosarcoma. Because sarcomas originating in the adrenal gland are extremely rare and this case is exceptionally intriguing, we were interested in the recent publication by Xiaochuan et al. entitled “Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma of the adrenal gland: a case report and literature review” (1), and express our gratitude to the authors for reporting this invaluable case. However, UPS excluded differential diagnoses (2). Here, we discuss the key differential diagnoses in this case and provide recent insights into UPS.
Subsections relevant for the subject.
First, regarding imaging findings, this study presents only plain computed tomography images, making it impossible to strictly evaluate the internal characteristics of the tumor. Therefore, we discuss the differential diagnoses that should be excluded in diagnosing UPS.
2 Commentary and discussion
2.1 UPS
Pathological findings are crucial for the diagnosis of UPS. Key points include the lack of specific markers detectable by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in UPS and necessity of excluding other spindle cells and pleomorphic sarcomas (2). Specific diagnostic considerations include 1) the possibility of pleomorphic sarcomas with differentiation along specific lines, 2) presence of dedifferentiated sarcoma components, and 3) potential for sarcomatoid features in the carcinoma (3). Specifically for (1), the absence of histological or IHC findings typically observed in other pleomorphic sarcomas must be demonstrated. Therefore, we aimed to introduce the clinical features of UPS (3). Surgical resection is the primary treatment for this condition. However, opinions on the effect of surgical margins on local recurrence and overall survival (OS) (4). In Xiaochuan, a margin of approximately 5 cm is considered safe (1). Nevertheless, UPS, as well as myxofibrosarcoma (MFS), are recognized as an infiltrative sarcoma that requires pathological evaluation of surgical margins because the recurrence rate in cases of infiltrative UPS and MFS increases as the distance of the tumor margin becomes shorter (4). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are often combined with surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for UPS improved raplase-free survival (RFS) and OS. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly extended OS in patients with localized UPS and was identified as an independent prognostic factor. The current regimen includes single or combination therapies with ifosfamide and anthracyclines, whereas combinations, such as gemcitabine and docetaxel, molecular targeted therapies, and immunotherapies, are under investigation with expected results (5). Radiotherapy is frequently used, with postoperative radiotherapy reported to significantly improve local RFS and OS (6).
2.2 Important differential diagnoses for UPS
2.1.1 Dedifferentiated liposarcoma
The histological features of dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) involve progression from atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma to high-grade nonlipogenic sarcomas. Dedifferentiated components exhibit a wide morphological spectrum and often resemble UPS or MFS in histological patterns (7). Morphologically, they show moderate or high cellularity, moderate to marked pleomorphism, and the cells are arranged in patternless distributions, loose fascicles, or storiform “malignant fibrous histiocytoma-like” architecture (8). Moreover, approximately 5–10% display heterologous differentiation, commonly involving muscle, bone, or cartilage differentiation, with particular attention required for differentiation from leiomyosarcoma or rhabdomyosarcoma if muscle differentiation is present (9). IHC and FISH findings are crucial for overcoming challenges in histological diagnosis. In DDLPS, markers, such as CD34, α-SMA, and desmin, may be positive, with the expression of MDM2 and CDK4 being significant. The combination of MDM2, CDK4, and p16 is frequently used (8). Amplification of MDM2 via FISH is commonly confirmed with a positivity rate > 90% (10). However, in UPS cases involving the retroperitoneum and thigh, IHC showed positivity for MDM2 in 22%, CDK4 in 29%, and both in 18% of the cases. Additionally, amplification of MDM2 and/or CDK4 via FISH has been observed in 13% of UPS cases (11). Therefore, differentiating DDLPS from UPS requires a comprehensive diagnosis that combines morphological observations with IHC and FISH analyses.
2.1.2 Leiomyosarcoma
Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is a malignant neoplasm comprising cells with smooth muscle differentiation, and many of these tumors are highly malignant (12). Among these, pleomorphic LMS (PLMS) is particularly difficult to differentiate from UPS. PLMS is characterized by older age at presentation, deep limb or retroperitoneal origins, and frequent metastases (13). As for IHC markers, LMS overall can be diagnosed using α-SMA, desmin, and h-caldesmon, with at least one of these markers being positive in 100% of cases and > 70% of cases showing positivity for ≥ 2 markers. However, no specific markers have been identified. Cytokeratin, EMA, and CD34 may be positive, and are often focal. These expressions generally hold true for PLMS, although in 50–70% of cases, at least one myogenic marker is positive; however, compared to typical LMS, these markers are often weakly stained or focal in PLMS (12). LMS has been reported to metastasize at 29–44%, with a 10-year survival rate of only 49–60% (14). PLMS demonstrates a high proliferative capacity and aggressive biological behavior, making careful postoperative follow-up essential (15).
2.1.3 Rhabdomyosarcoma
Among its subtypes, pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (PRMS) is particularly challenging to differentiate from the UPS. Although RMS predominantly affects children, PRMS is more commonly found in the elderly and often arises in the deep soft tissues of the extremities (13). PRMSs comprise sheets of atypical, large, and frequently multinucleated polygonal, spindle-shaped, or rhabdoid cells (16). In IHC, desmin is typically positive, whereas the expression of MyoD1 and myogenin is often limited; however, these findings are essential for distinguishing PRMS from UPS (17). PRMS is a highly aggressive sarcoma with a mean survival of 7.3 months, and 80% of patients reportedly succumb to this disease (16).
3 Conclusion
Here, we examined the differential diagnoses that should be considered in the diagnosis of UPS and an overview of UPS itself. In diagnosing UPS, morphological features and IHC marker expressions should be presented while emphasizing the concept that “exclusion diagnosis is principle.
Author contributions
TK: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Data curation. TW: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. MH: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. SK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. RK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. SF: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. MW: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. JI: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by joint research grants under the Comprehensive Agreement between Saitama University and Saitama Medical University (22-J-01, 23-J-08, and 24-J-02).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Xiaochuan G, Wei Z, Chaoyong Y, Yu Z, Huayong J, Na Y, et al. Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma of the adrenal gland: A case report and literature review. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1439357. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1439357
2. Widemann BC and Italiano A. Biology and management of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, myxofibrosarcoma, and Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: State of the art and perspectives. J Clin Oncol. (2018) 36:160–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.3467
3. Goldblum JR. An approach to pleomorphic sarcomas: Can we subclassify, and does it matter? Mod Pathol. (2014) 27 Suppl 1:S39–46. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.174
4. Fujiwara T, Sumathi V, Parry M, Stevenson J, Tsuda Y, Kaneuchi Y, et al. The role of surgical margin quality in myxofibrosarcoma and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2021) 47:1756–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.11.144
5. Miwa S, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Taniguchi Y, Yonezawa H, Morinaga S, et al. Current and emerging systemic treatment options for Malignant fibrous histiocytoma/undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Int J Clin Oncol. (2025) 1734–42. doi: 10.1007/s10147-025-02712-6
6. Goertz O, Pieper A, Lohe LV, Stricker I, Dadras M, Behr B, et al. The impact of surgical margins and adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas of the extremities: A single-institutional analysis of 192 patients. Cancers (Basel). (2020) 12:362. doi: 10.3390/cancers12020362
7. Dei Tos AP, Marino-Enriquez A, and Pedeutour F. Dedifferentiated liposarcoma. In: WHO classification of tumours, soft tissue and bone tumours, 5th ed. IARC Press, Lyon (2020). p. 39–41.
8. Thway K. Well-differentiated liposarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma: An updated review. Semin Diagn Pathol. (2019) 36:112–21. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2019.02.006
9. Kawasaki T, Tashima T, Onohara K, Hirano Y, Yamato M, Shirotake S, et al. Case report: A rare clinical presentation of a difficult diagnosis of dedifferentiated liposarcoma showing leiomyosarcoma phenotype in the ileocecal region. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1425809. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1425809
10. Ichikawa J, Kawasaki T, Onohara K, Kanno S, Wako M, Ochiai S, et al. The novel role of Mdm2 in the diagnosis and treatment of dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1466399. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1466399
11. Chung L, Lau SK, Jiang Z, Loera S, Bedel V, Ji J, et al. Overlapping features between dedifferentiated liposarcoma and undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. (2009) 33:1594–600. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181accb01
12. Dry SM and Frohling S. Leiomyosarcoma. In: WHO classification of tumours, soft tissue and bone tumours, 5th ed. IARC Press, Lyon (2020). p. 195–7.
13. Hornick JL. Subclassification of pleomorphic sarcomas: How and why should we care? Ann Diagn Pathol. (2018) 37:118–24. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2018.10.006
14. Muratori F, Greto D, Cenatiempo M, Mazzei G, Frenos F, Roselli G, et al. Leiomyosarcoma: Clinicopathological study and retrospective analysis of prognostic factors in a series of 100 patients. J Orthop. (2019) 16:303–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.03.004
15. Oda Y, Miyajima K, Kawaguchi K, Tamiya S, Oshiro Y, Hachitanda Y, et al. Pleomorphic leiomyosarcoma: Clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study with special emphasis on its distinction from ordinary leiomyosarcoma and Malignant fibrous histiocytoma. Am J Surg Pathol. (2001) 25:1030–8. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200108000-00007
16. Montgomery EA and Dry SM. Pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma. In: WHO classification of tumours, soft tissue and bone tumours, 5th ed. IARC Press, Lyon (2020). p. 209–10.
Keywords: dedifferentiated liposarcoma, exclusion diagnosis, histopathology, leiomyosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma
Citation: Kawasaki T, Watanabe T, Hirasaki M, Kanno S, Kawamura R, Kokubo A, Furuya S, Wako M and Ichikawa J (2026) Commentary: Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma of the adrenal gland: a case report and literature review. Front. Oncol. 16:1685761. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1685761
Received: 15 August 2025; Accepted: 21 January 2026; Revised: 08 January 2026;
Published: 05 February 2026.
Edited by:
Salvatore Siracusano, University of L’Aquila, ItalyReviewed by:
Sorin Paun, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, RomaniaCopyright © 2026 Kawasaki, Watanabe, Hirasaki, Kanno, Kawamura, Kokubo, Furuya, Wako and Ichikawa. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jiro Ichikawa, amljaGlAc2I0LnNvLW5ldC5uZS5qcA==