An analysis of <scp><i>PLAG1</i></scp> and <scp><i>HMGA2</i></scp> rearrangements in salivary duct carcinoma and examination of the role of precursor lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) often arises in pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Putative precursors, including low-grade cribriform cystadenocarcinoma (LGCCC) and ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS), are more controversial. Rearrangement of PLAG1 or HMGA2 is seen in 50-70% of PAs, but this has not been investigated in SDC. Using a large collection of SDCs from a single institution, we aimed to study these genes by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), and to correlate the presence of precursor lesions/intraductal proliferations with gene alterations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-four SDCs were stained for smooth muscle actin, CK14, and p63, and examined with PLAG1 and HMGA2 FISH. Eight cases were SDC ex-PA; ten had a hyalinized nodule (HN), which is suspicious for PA; six arose in association with LGCCC; and twenty were 'de-novo' SDCs. Ten cases had PLAG1 rearrangement/amplification (22.7%) and eight had HMGA2 (18.2%) rearrangement/amplification. The positive cases were four SDC ex-PAs, eight SDCs with an HN, and five 'de-novo' SDCs. Twenty-three SDC ex-PAs were present in total (52.3%). All six SDC ex-LGCCCs were FISH-negative. Myoepithelial staining surrounded all LGCCCs, and demonstrated DCIS in 17 cases. Eleven DCIS lesions were in SDC ex-PAs or FISH-positive 'de-novo' SDCs. These cases represent 'cancerization' of ducts. Only six FISH-negative 'de-novo' SDCs showed DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of SDCs arise in PAs (with or without residual evidence of a PA). A small proportion of SDCs arise in LGCCCs. Cases showing DCIS often represent cancerization.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".