Salivary duct carcinoma and the concept of early carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The data on the histological type of carcinomatous component and the extent of extracapsular invasion for salivary carcinomas ex pleomorphic adenoma (PA) are conflicting. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of extracapsular invasion in salivary duct carcinomas (SDC) ex PA. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 117 patients with SDC were identified retrospectively; 44 cases involving major salivary glands had pre-existing PA (44 of 117, 37%). The morphological spectrum of SDC ex PA was characterized. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Most SDC ex PA were widely invasive at presentation (27 of 44; 61%). Five patients with intracapsular SDC ex PA experienced no disease progression. The assessment of extracapsular invasion was precluded in eight cases (e.g. positive margins of resection). The rate of lymph node involvement was similar in cases with extracapsular invasion of ≤2 mm (two of three) and >7 mm (22 of 26). Only pT correlated with OS [116 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 22-210 months for pT1 versus 20 months (95% CI 6-34) for pT4; P = 0.013]. CONCLUSIONS: Intracapsular SDC ex PA are potentially indolent. SDC ex PA with extracapsular invasion of ≤2 mm are rare, and appear to be clinically aggressive. Several histological parameters preclude assessment of extracapsular invasion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".