Osteoclast-Like Giant Cell Reaction Associated With Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Report of 2 Cases and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The observation of osteoclast-like giant cells (O-LGCs) in intimate association with visceral malignancies is an uncommon phenomenon that has been recognized for over 40 years. Recently, the same observation has been made in relation to cutaneous malignancies. In an article published in 2005, O-LGCs were documented in association with 3 melanomas, and since then, there have been 3 separate case reports recording the presence of these cells in cutaneous carcinomas. In the context of both visceral and cutaneous malignancies, the exact nature of the O-LGCs has been a source of controversy, with respect to whether they represent modified tumor cells or an unusual host response to the neoplasm. We report here 2 additional cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma associated with O-LGCs. The morphological pattern of the giant cell proliferation differed between these cases, taking the form of (1) a giant cell tumor-like nodule apposed to the carcinoma in one and (2) scattered O-LGCs interspersed with tumor cells in the other. Based on scrutiny of routine sections and the contrasting immunohistochemical profiles of the O-LGCs versus the carcinomas, showing CD68 positivity on one hand and high-molecular weight keratin and p63 positivity on the other, we concluded that in both instances, the O-LGC proliferation was a reactive phenomenon. This theory is supported by most publications on the subject. Clinical and histopathological details of the new cases are outlined and integrated with those in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".