Tumours composed of fat are no longer a simple diagnosis: an overview of fatty tumours with a spindle cell component
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a review of the morphological spectrum of fatty tumours containing a component of spindle cells, highlighting the immunohistochemical and cytogenetic workup that is now mandatory for accurate diagnosis, with the goal of providing a practical approach for practising surgical pathologists. There have been significant advances in recent years in classifying and understanding the pathogenesis of fatty tumours with spindle cells, based on the correlation of histological, immunohistochemical and cytogenetic/molecular findings. In spite of this, morphological diagnosis and accurate classification of fatty tumours with spindle cells can be challenging to diagnostic pathologists. A group of three lesions: spindle cell lipoma, mammary-type myofibroblastoma and cellular angiofibroma share morphological features and are united by retinoblastoma protein (pRb) loss. Closely allied to these lesions, especially spindle cell lipoma is the newly designated atypical spindle cell lipomatous tumour, which shares morphological, immunohistochemical and cytogenetic features with the trio of tumours lacking nuclear pRb. All of these lesions lack MDM2 and CDK4 amplification as well and separation is based on clinical features, principally location. Atypical lipomatous tumour or well-differentiated liposarcoma shows retention of pRb but overexpression and amplification of MDM2. Fatty tumours with spindle cells need to be extensively sampled, with careful attention paid to cellular atypia and location, and they need to have immunohistochemical workup with pRb, MDM2, desmin, CD34 and p16. In addition, cytogenetic analysis for MDM2 and CDK4 amplification has become crucial for the proper identification of these lesions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".