OBJECTIVE:
Our objectives were to evaluate the reliability of MRI in distinguishing simple lipomas, lipoma variants, and well-differentiated liposarcomas (atypical lipomas) and to identify various imaging mimics of well-differentiated liposarcoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
One hundred twenty-six consecutively imaged grossly fatty masses were retrospectively reviewed. MRI examinations, their prospective interpretations, and their corresponding pathology reports were compared to determine the reliability of MRI in distinguishing simple lipomas, lipoma variants, and well-differentiated liposarcomas.

RESULTS:
The success of MRI in identifying well-differentiated liposarcomas among other fatty masses was as follows: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 83%; accuracy, 84%; positive predictive value, 38%; and negative predictive value, 100%. MRI was 100% specific in the diagnosis of simple lipoma. Sixty-three percent of lesions considered suspicious for well-differentiated liposarcoma were actually simple lipomas (13%) and benign lipoma variants (50%), including chondroid lipoma (13%), osteolipoma (6%), hibernoma (6%), lipoleiomyoma (6%), angiolipoma (6%), and infarcted lipoma (13%).

CONCLUSION:
Because of differences in treatment, prognosis, and long-term follow-up, it is important to preoperatively distinguish simple lipomas from well-differentiated liposarcomas. MRI is highly sensitive in the detection of well-differentiated liposarcomas and highly specific in the diagnosis of simple lipomas. However, when an extremity or body wall lesion is considered suspicious for well-differentiated liposarcoma, it is more likely (64%) to represent one of many benign lipoma variants.



Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
71% Article relates to my practice (5/7)
28% Article does not relate to my practice (2/7)
0% Undecided (0/7)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

71% Yes (5/7)
28% No (2/7)
0% Undecided (0/7)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/7)
100% No (7/7)
0% Undecided (0/7)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/7)
14% Level 2 (1/7)
42% Level 3 (3/7)
42% Level 4 (3/7)
0% Level 5 (0/7)