MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542779507 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v7i11.2662

Primary Lung Adenocarcinoma With Trophoblastic Differentiation and Usage of Gefitinib for Postoperative Recurrence: Report of a Case With a Review of the Literature

2016· review· en· W2542779507 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasumichi Yamamoto, Toshiya Toyazaki, Shinji Kosaka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGefitinibAdenocarcinomaLung cancerOncologyChoriocarcinomaEpidermal growth factor receptorCarcinomaInternal medicineLungCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a rare and very aggressive case of lung carcinoma showing trophoblastic differentiation, so-called choriocarcinoma, for which postoperative recurrence was treated using gefitinib. A 51-year-old woman with pathological stage IIA adenocarcinoma with trophoblastic differentiation underwent left lower lobectomy with lymph node dissection and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, remaining tumor-free for 10 months until the detection of the brain metastasis. Gefitinib was administered, as the tumor was positive for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, and this resulted in a 12-month progression-free period. The patient died 37 months after surgery due to multiple metastases in the brain, ovary and uterus. This is the first case report using gefitinib to the lung carcinoma showing trophoblastic differentiation. A review of the literature on lung cancer with trophoblastic differentiation suggested that a chemotherapeutic regimen for primary lung cancer other than germ cell tumor might be suitable for the lung carcinoma with trophoblastic differentiation. J Med Cases. 2016;7(11):484-487 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2662w

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207