Mammary Analogue Secretory Carcinoma of Salivary Glands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ETV6 gene abnormalities are well described in tumor pathology. Many fusion partners of ETV6 have been reported in a variety of epithelial and hematological malignancies. In salivary gland tumor pathology, however, the ETV6-NTRK3 translocation is specific for mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC), and has not been documented in any other salivary tumor type. The present study comprised a clinical and molecular analysis of 25 cases morphologically and immunohistochemically typical of MASC. They all also displayed the ETV6 rearrangement as visualized by fluorescent in situ hybridization but lacked the classical ETV6-NTRK3 fusion transcript by standard reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. In 4 cases, the classical fusion transcript was found by more sensitive, nested reverse-transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Five other cases harbored atypical fusion transcripts as detected by both standard and nested reverse-transcription-polymerase chain reaction. In addition, fluorescent in situ hybridization with an NTRK3 break-apart probe was also performed; rearrangement of NTRK3 gene was detected in 16 of 25 cases. In 3 other cases, the tissue was not analyzable, and in 2 further cases analysis could not be performed because of a lack of appropriate tissue material. Finally, in the 4 remaining cases whose profile was NTRK3 split-negative and ETV6 split-positive, unknown (non-NTRK) genes appeared to fuse with ETV6 (ETV6-X fusion). In looking for possible fusion partners, analysis of rearrangement of other kinase genes known to fuse with ETV6 was also performed, but without positive results. Although numbers were small, correlating the clinico-pathologic features of the 4 ETV6-X fusion tumors and 5 MASC cases with atypical fusion transcripts raises the possibility of that they may behave more aggressively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".