Genital verrucous carcinoma is associated with lichen sclerosus: a retrospective study and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association of lichen sclerosus (LS) with genital squamous cell carcinoma is well recognized. However, the relationship between LS and verrucous carcinoma remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the associations of genital and perianal verrucous carcinomas with LS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on patients with a genital or perianal verrucous carcinoma and reviewed their histopathology specimens and clinical notes. We also conducted a literature review. RESULTS: We identified a total of 13 patients (including 6 women and 7 men) with a genital or perianal verrucous carcinoma. All 5 women with vulval verrucous carcinoma had coexisting LS (5/5), and 1 man with penile verrucous carcinoma had coexisting LS (1/3). In contrast, no coexisting LS was found in all 5 cases of perianal verrucous carcinoma (0/5). Half of the cases of verrucous carcinoma with coexisting LS had recurrences (3/6), while no recurrences were found in those without coexisting LS (0/7). CONCLUSIONS: Our study and review of the literature demonstrate that vulval verrucous carcinoma is strongly associated with LS. In contrast, perianal verrucous carcinoma is not associated with LS. When genital verrucous carcinoma is diagnosed, it is important to consider LS as a potential concomitant diagnosis and offer appropriate treatments and close follow-up to detect recurrence of verrucous carcinoma.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".