Mammary Analogue Secretory Carcinoma of Salivary Glands, Containing the ETV6-NTRK3 Fusion Gene: A Hitherto Undescribed Salivary Gland Tumor Entity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a series of 16 salivary gland tumors with histomorphologic and immunohistochemical features reminiscent of secretory carcinoma of the breast. This is a hitherto undescribed and distinctive salivary gland neoplasm, with features resembling both salivary acinic cell carcinoma (AciCC) and low-grade cystadenocarcinoma, and displaying strong similarities to breast secretory carcinoma. Microscopically, the tumors have a lobulated growth pattern and are composed of microcystic and glandular spaces with abundant eosinophilic homogenous or bubbly secretory material positive for periodic acid-Schiff, mucicarmine, MUC1, MUC4, and mammaglobin. The neoplasms also show strong vimentin, S-100 protein, and STAT5a positivity. For this tumor, we propose a designation mammary analogue secretory carcinoma of salivary glands (MASC). The 16 patients comprised 9 men and 7 women, with a mean age of 46 years (range 21 to 75). Thirteen cases occurred in the parotid gland, and one each in the minor salivary glands of the buccal mucosa, upper lip, and palate. The mean size of the tumors was 2.1 cm (range 0.7 to 5.5 cm). The duration of symptoms was recorded in 11 cases and ranged from 2 months to 30 years. Clinical follow-up was available in 13 cases, and ranged from 3 months to 10 years. Four patients suffered local recurrences. Two patients died, 1 of them owing to multiple local recurrences with extension to the temporal bone, and another owing to metastatic dissemination to cervical lymph nodes, pleura, pericardium, and lungs. We have shown a t(12;15) (p13;q25) ETV6-NTRK3 translocation in all but one case of MASC suitable for analysis. One case was not analyzable and another was not available for testing. This translocation was not found in any conventional salivary AciCC (12 cases), nor in other tumor types including pleomorphic adenoma (1 case) and low-grade cribriform cystadenocarcinoma (1 case), whereas ETV6-NTRK3 gene rearrangements were proven in all 3 tested cases of mammary secretory carcinoma. Thus, our results strongly support the concept that MASC and AciCC are different entities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".