Noninvasive Papillary Basal-like Urothelial Carcinoma: A Subgroup of Urothelial Carcinomas With Immunohistochemical Features of Basal Urothelial Cells Associated With a High Rate of Recurrence and Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the clinical and pathologic significance of a subgroup of noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas (UCs) expressing reactivity to urothelial basal cell markers. DESIGN: In total, 302 consecutive cases of noninvasive papillary UC were evaluated immunohistochemically with cytokeratin 5 (CK5)/CD44. Any UC that was reactive for greater than 25% thickness of the urothelium was designated as basal-like urothelial carcinoma (BUC); remaining UC cases were designated as non-BUC. The follow-up period was up to 3 years. Historical review of UC was extended for up to 3 retrospective years. RESULTS: Among 302 noninvasive UC, BUC was identified in 33 of 256 (12.9%) low-grade UC and 8 of 46 (17%) high-grade UC (P=0.041). Immunoreactivity for CD44 was similar to that of CK5, but displayed weaker and more diffuse staining. CK20 was reactive in 9 cases, primarily high-grade BUC. Other basal cell markers (34bE12, p63, bcl2, and EP4) were found to be neither sensitive nor specific in detecting UC with high CK5 expression. In comparison with non-BUC, BUC was associated with increased multifocality, larger tumor size, higher recurrence rate, and more frequent upgrading and stage progression. In the follow-up period of 3 years, distant metastasis occurred in 6 cases of which 5 were in the BUC subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that noninvasive papillary BUC represents a small subset associated with increased risk of tumor recurrence and progression. The aggressive behavior is likely associated with basal-like features of BUC, as seen in carcinomas with basal cell features in other body sites.
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".