MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976572351 · doi:10.1097/pai.0b013e318244ff4b

Sox10 and S100 in the Diagnosis of Soft-tissue Neoplasms

2012· article· en· W1976572351 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Karamchandani, Torsten O. Nielsen, Matt van de Rijn, Robert B. West

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSOX10Synovial sarcomaNeural crestS100 proteinPathologySarcomaDermatofibrosarcoma protuberansImmunohistochemistryNeurofibromaMedicineMalignant peripheral nerve sheath tumorSoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissueTissue microarrayBiologyNeurofibromatosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a well-characterized lack of specificity, pathologists routinely employ S100 in the diagnosis of neural crest-derived tumors. Recent studies have shown that Sox10 is a reliable marker of neural crest differentiation that is consistently expressed in schwannian and melanocytic tumors. We sought to validate these results in a larger series of soft tissue neoplasms of both neural crest and non-neural crest origin, and to further characterize the sensitivity and specificity of Sox10 for use in clinical diagnosis. We evaluated Sox10 and S100 mRNA levels in 122 cases of peripheral nerve sheath tumors and synovial sarcoma and used immunohistochemistry for Sox10 and S100 protein expression in 1012 tissue specimens. This study includes 174 tissue microarray cases previously reported by Nonaka and colleagues, which include cases of melanoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, neurofibroma, synovial sarcoma, clear-cell sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), perineurioma, and schwannoma. Synovial sarcomas expressed significantly higher levels of S100B than Sox10 (P=7.9×10), and no significant Sox10 mRNA expression was identified in synovial sarcoma (n=40), whereas 18/40 cases showed comparatively increased levels of S100 mRNA. The majority of schwannomas (n=26) and neurofibromas (n=28) showed relatively an increased expression of both Sox10 and S100 mRNA. MPNSTs (n=28) showed variable levels of Sox10 and S100 mRNA expression, and these expression levels were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.79). In contrast, immunohistochemistry performed on a larger and more varied number of cases highlighted significant differences between the 2 proteins. We identified 5 non-neural, nonmelanocytic sarcoma types in which a subset of cases showed S100 protein expression: synovial sarcoma (12/79, 15%), Ewing sarcoma (3/14, 21%), rhabdomyosarcoma (4/17, 24%), chondrosarcoma (3/4, 75%), and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (5/11, 45%). For each of these entities, we identified cases with strong and diffuse S100 staining. Of these cases, only 1 case of rhabdomyosarcoma showed focal Sox10 positivity. In 78 cases of MPNST, S100 increased the sensitivity (31/78, 40%) as compared with Sox10 (21/78, 27%), but the majority of these cases were negative for both Sox10 and S100 (44/78, 56%). Sox10 proved superior to S100 in the detection of desmoplastic melanoma (7/9, 78%) and clear-cell sarcoma (4/7, 57%). We also report for the first time Sox10 expression in 26 cases of granular cell tumor, further supporting the neural crest derivation of this tumor. Excluding MPNST, S100 and Sox10 showed similar sensitivity in tumors of neural crest origin (140/148, 95% and 137/148, 93%, respectively). In summary, Sox10 shows an increased specificity for tumors of neural crest origin compared with S100: Sox10 was positive in only 5 of 668 cases (99% specificity) in nonschwannian, nonmelanocytic tumors, whereas S100 was positive in 53 of 668 cases (91% specificity). Sox10 should be used in the place of or along with S100 in soft tissue tumor diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations347
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207