↓ Skip to main content

Liposarcoma masquerading as an inflammatory pseudotumor: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Liposarcoma masquerading as an inflammatory pseudotumor: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-0858-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica J. H. Reagh, Robert P. Eckstein, Christina I. Selinger, Justin Evans, Sandra A. O’Toole, Anthony J. Gill

Abstract

Distinguishing an atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma from a benign lipomatous tumor on morphology alone can be difficult and there is an established role for MDM2 fluorescent in situ hybridization studies in making this differential diagnosis. There is no literature on the role for MDM2 fluorescent in situ hybridization studies in distinguishing between a well-differentiated liposarcoma with extreme fibrosis and a fibrosing inflammatory pseudotumor. We report the case of a 76-year-old Australian woman initially diagnosed by an excision biopsy with a retroperitoneal fibrosing inflammatory pseudotumor. She was then diagnosed 5 years later with a pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma. Upon review of the original resection specimen, we were able to show that the tumor demonstrated MDM2 amplification. MDM2 amplification was also present in some adjacent bland adipose tissue, and also in the tumor recurrence as a pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma. Taken together, our findings provide strong evidence that the original tumor was a misdiagnosed well-differentiated liposarcoma with extreme fibrosis, and the pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma represented a recurrence of the same tumor with dedifferentiation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 57%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 86%
Unknown 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,185,991
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#328
of 3,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,547
of 300,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#8
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,924 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.