Vulvar melanoma: report on eleven cases and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Vulvar melanoma is a rare disease. We describe the experience of a single institution and review the literature. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study at the Department of Gynecology, Hospital do Cancer A. C. Camargo. METHODS: Eleven patients with vulvar melanoma attended between January 1987 and December 2006 were reviewed regarding clinicopathological characteristics, surgical therapy and follow-up. RESULTS: The initial symptoms were vulvar lesions, pruritus, pain and bleeding. The median age was 64.8 years. The median depth of invasion was 3.08 mm. The staging ranged from IB to IIIC (American Joint Committee on Cancer, 2002). All the patients underwent vulvectomy. Two patients did not undergo primary elective lymphadenectomy. Bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed on five patients, and one had unilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy. Sentinel lymph node investigation was performed on three patients. Five patients had locoregional recurrence. Prolonged survival was only achieved in the absence of lymph node involvement. The median follow-up was 56 months. The median disease-free survival was 15 months and the median overall survival was 29 months. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for patients with vulvar melanoma is generally poor, with a high tendency towards regional and distant recurrence. Depth of invasion and lymph node involvement are the most important prognostic factors. In most cases, resection of the lesion with adequate margins may replace vulvectomy. Elective inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy remains the standard lymph node staging procedure. Sentinel lymph node investigation is feasible and should be performed by a multidisciplinary team with experience of this method.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".