Giant Cell Tumour of the Larynx: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and since then, fewer than 30 confirmed caseshave been reported in the literature. We present a newcase of GCT of the larynx and a comprehensive reviewof the literature. Case ReportA 49-year-old man presented with a 2-month history ofprogressive hoarseness, sore throat, and swelling on theleft side of his neck. The patient had no history ofsmoking or alcohol consumption. Physical examinationrevealed a palpable mass located on the left side of theneck overlying the thyroid cartilage measuring approxi-mately 4 cm in diameter. Flexible laryngoscopy showedfullness of the left supraglottis but no endolaryngealanomalies. The remaining head and neck examinationwas normal. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy was per-formed, yielding a tentative diagnosis of malignantcells. Computed tomography (CT) demonstrated a softtissue mass originating from the middle of the left thy-roid cartilage (Figure 1). The mass was well definedand mildly enhancing and appeared to have a cartilagi-nous matrix. Mild effacement of the larynx and trueand false vocal cords was present. An open biopsy was then performed, and GCT ofthe larynx was diagnosed. This diagnosis was con-firmed on a review by the Armed Forces Institute ofPathology (Washington, DC). The patient underwent asupracricoid laryngectomy with complete excision ofthe tumour. Thirty-two months following partial laryn-gectomy, the patient was free of disease. He has anexcellent voice and is able to consume a regular diet.PathologyGross examination of the tumour demonstrated a4.0 × 3.0 × 2.5 cm mass. The specimen was tan, withareas of soft tissue fragments, and had a solid, rubberyconsistency (Figure 2A). The left thyroid cartilage waspartially destroyed by the tumour mass, and the rightthyroid cartilage was unaffected. Microscopically, thespecimen was composed of numerous multinucleatedgiant cells with a background of large, oval mononu-clear cells. The nuclei were relatively small, and signifi-cant numbers of intracytoplasmic inclusions were notobserved (Figure 2B). A small amount of fibroconnec-tive tissue was associated with the tumour fragments.Significant mitotic activity was absent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".