Sessile serrated polyp mimicry in patients with solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: is there evidence of preneoplastic change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is associated with erythema and ulceration of the rectal wall. Serrated lesions of the colon are divided into conventional hyperplastic polyps and a new set of lesions that are variably called sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) and sessile serrated adenomas. The SSPs are epithelial proliferative lesions that appear to act as a unique pathway to colorectal carcinogenesis. No association between SRUS and SSPs has been previously reported. OBJECTIVE: To assess a possible association between SRUS and morphologic features that mimic SSPs. DESIGN: Twenty-six patients with SRUS, who presented to our institution between January 1, 1999, and November 14, 2004, were retrospectively reviewed for SSP-type morphologic features by 3 pathologists. Ki-67 and hMLH1 immunohistochemical stains were used. Control tissues included 10 conventional left-sided hyperplastic polyps, 10 right-sided large SSPs, 7 adenocarcinomas with known loss of hMLH1 gene expression, and 4 normal human tonsil tissues. RESULTS: Ten (38%) of 26 SRUS specimens demonstrated histologic features consistent with SSPs. These features included exaggerated serration within the lower crypt compartments, crypt branching, hypermucinous appearance of epithelium, and horizontal extension of crypt bases along the muscularis mucosa. All 10 cases of SRUS had positive basal Ki-67 staining in 10% to 20% of cells. Two (20%) of the 10 cases demonstrated focal superficial loss of hMLH1 mismatch repair gene expression within areas of serrated morphologic features. One hyperplastic polyp superimposed on SRUS showed a reduced number of surface epithelial cells that express hMLH1 protein. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 38% of patients with SRUS have histologic changes that mimic SSPs. More importantly, 20% of these serrated lesions were found to have focal loss of hMLH1 gene expression, indicating a potential of preneoplastic change. This phenomenon may reflect an increased propensity for neoplastic progression in response to repeated trauma and repair process in certain cases of SRUS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".