Immunohistochemical Characterization of Primary and Recurrent Adult Granulosa Cell Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult granulosa cell tumors are usually diagnosed at an early stage. However, most patients with advanced or recurrent disease will die of the disease due to limited treatment options. Data on the immunohistochemical characteristics of recurrent granulosa cell tumors are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the immunohistochemical profile of primary and recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors. Special emphasis is given to epidermal growth factor receptor expression because it represents a potential marker for targeted therapy with monoclonal antibodies.Inhouse granulosa cell tumor cases accessioned between 1999 and 2008 were retrieved and reviewed according to the WHO classification. Cases were studied by immunohistochemistry using a panel of 11 antibodies. Immunostaining was semiquantitatively recorded.We have studied 20 cases of primary and 20 cases of recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors from 31 patients. Immunohistochemistry showed that primary tumors were positive for inhibin in 100%, calretinin 100%, CD56 90%, CD99 40%, D2-40 35% and low molecular weight keratin 30%. Recurrences were positive for inhibin 90%, calretinin 85%, CD56 95%, CD99 65%, D2-40 55% and low molecular weight keratin 10%. Recurrences were positive for inhibin 90%, calretinin 85%, CD56 95%, CD99 65%, D2-40 55%, and low molecular weight keratin 10%. All primary and recurrent tumors were negative for melan-A, CD10, and epithelial membrane antigen. Epidermal growth factor receptor was positive in 65% of primary tumors and 85% of recurrences. Ki67 index was higher in recurrence specimens. The immunoprofile of primary and recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors is highly concordant. Similar to primary tumors, almost all recurrent cases exhibited evidence of sex cord lineage. The lack of specific markers emphasizes the need for evaluation using a panel of antibodies. Special attention should be paid when low molecular-weight keratin is used as part of a panel differentiating granulosa cell tumors from carcinomas, as a significant proportion of the former are positive. Although targeted therapies directed against epidermal growth factor receptor have not been tested yet in the setting of advanced or recurrent granulosa cell tumors, the high level of epidermal growth factor receptor expression is important as we step to an era of advanced biolabeled imaging techniques.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".