Adenoid cystic carcinoma: Use of cell proliferation, BCL-2 expression, histologic grade, and clinical stage as predictors of clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the three basic histologic growth patterns of adenoid cystic carcinomas (tubular, cribriform, and solid) provide some indication of clinical outcome, additional, perhaps superior, predictors of biologic activity are needed for patient management. METHODS: This series is composed of 31 adenoid cystic carcinomas that presented in Linköping between 1982 and 1997. The tumors were clinically staged and histologically graded. For each case, after immunohistochemical identification, the proportion of tumor cells expressing the cell cycle markers MIB-1 and bcl-2 (as an indicator of proliferation and apoptosis, respectively) were quantified. Statistical correlation was sought between tumor stage and grade and the two cell cycle markers. RESULTS: The proportions of cycling tumor cells in adenoid cystic carcinomas ranged from 0.3% to 55%. For patients with no evidence of disease and a follow-up of at least 5 years, the mean percent MIB-1 value was significantly lower than for those patients who were alive with local recurrence and/or metastasis or who had died from their adenoid cystic carcinoma (p =. 024). MIB-1 tumor cell positivity also correlated strongly with tumor grade (p =.053), but not with stage (p =.22). Neither clinical stage nor histologic grade correlated with the degree of bcl-2 tumor cell positivity (p =.97 and p =.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Staging and grading continue to play a vital role in the management of patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma. Furthermore, in this series of patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma, a cycling tumor cell population as measured by the MIB-1 antibody greater than 10% indicates this group as biologically more aggressive and at an increased risk for a fatal course.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".