MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048857844 · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e3181e6579c

Endometrial Giant Cell Carcinoma: A Case Series and Review of the Spectrum of Endometrial Neoplasms Containing Giant Cells

2010· review· en· W2048857844 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Marie Mulligan, Anna Plotkin, Marjan Rouzbahman, Robert A. Soslow, C. Blake Gilks, Blaise Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGiant cellPathologyMedicineCarcinomaClear cell carcinomaMetastasisClear cellAdenocarcinomaCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poorly differentiated endometrial carcinomas of specific type include the rarely reported endometrial carcinoma with a malignant giant cell component [endometrial giant cell carcinoma (GCC)]. Since the initial description in 1991, there has only been 1 subsequent case report of this entity. We report another 5 cases. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 83 years, presenting with vaginal bleeding, anemia, or a pelvic mass. Four of the 5 tumors contained areas of endometrial adenocarcinoma of usual type, with a variable giant cell component. The conventional cell types present included 1 case with clear cell carcinoma (30% of tumor volume), 2 with high-grade endometrioid carcinoma (50% and 70% of tumor volume, respectively) and 1 with serous histology (10% of tumor volume). One was composed exclusively of giant cell carcinoma. The giant cell component in all cases consisted of poorly cohesive nests of bizarre multinucleated giant cells with mononuclear tumor cells. A striking peritumoral and intratumoral inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, plasma cells and focal eosinophils, and neutrophils was present and emperipolesis was noted in 4 of the 5 cases. The giant cells showed focal staining for epithelial markers (AE1/AE3 and CAM 5.2). Three of the patients presented with stage 1A disease, 1 with stage 1B disease, and 1 tumor was advanced, presenting as stage IIIC2. One patient in whom the tumor was exclusively of the giant cell type, developed lung metastasis 4 years after diagnosis and 1 patient is disease free after 14 years. The remaining 3 patients showed no evidence of disease with 15 to 32 months of follow-up. As histotype supplemented by staging information is critical in selection of treatment modalities and in prognostication in uterine malignancies, accurate classification is mandated. Here, we present a series of endometrial carcinomas containing a component of GCC and discuss the spectrum of giant cell-containing uterine neoplasms. At this time, however, the cumulative data on endometrial GCC are limited and the prognostic significance of the presence and the extent of a giant cell component in endometrial carcinoma remains uncertain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207