MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566551735 · doi:10.4103/2303-9027.195873

Endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic schwannoma

2016· article· en· W2566551735 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Francesco Crinò, Laura Bernardoni, Erminia Manfrin, Alice Parisi, Armando Gabbrielli

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopic Ultrasound · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchwannomaMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundRadiologyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 59-year-old female underwent abdominal ultrasound for dyspepsia. A 2 cm pancreatic nodule was incidentally discovered. Computer tomography scanning confirmed a solid mass of the pancreatic uncinate process; at endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examination, it appeared as a round, well-demarked, solid homogeneous, hypoechoic mass [Figure 1]. In contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) images, the lesion showed poor contrast intake, with a hypoenhanced pattern compared to the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma [Figure 2]. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with a standard 25G needle revealed spindle cells [Figure 3] that expressed S-100 protein, suggestive for schwannoma. Surgical enucleation was performed, and diagnosis was confirmed on a surgical specimen [Figure 4].Figure 1: Linear endoscopic ultrasound demonstrating a solid, homogeneous, well-defined hypoechoic lesion in the uncinate process of the pancreasFigure 2: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound showing a hypoenhanced pattern of the tumor compared with the surrounding pancreatic parenchymaFigure 3: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimen showing dense fibrillary substance with Antoni A palisading spindle-shaped cells (Papanicolaou, ×40)Figure 4: Surgical specimen histopathology: Solid nodular lesion, surrounded by a fibrous capsule (a), in which the typical hallmark of a schwannoma growth pattern of alternating Antoni A and B areas is clearly visible (b) (EE, ×10). S-100 protein is strongly expressed by schwannoma cells (c)Pancreatic schwannoma is an extremely rare tumor. Complete descriptions of the EUS features or exhaustive EUS images are found in five reports[12345] whereas the CE-EUS pattern is described in a single one[5] [Table 1].Table 1: Main endoscopic ultrasound features of reported pancreatic schwannomasSchwannomas are capsulated tumors that, at imaging, are generally round or oval and show well-defined margins. Histologically, schwannomas comprised two areas: Antoni A, characterized by packed spindle cells and a vascular component, and Antoni B, which is hypocellular and occupied by loose stroma. The latter area may be the subject of degenerative changes, such as cyst formation, hemorrhage, necrosis, and calcification. Cystic degeneration is related to larger sizes and can affect the endosonographic appearance. When it is small (generally <2 cm), schwannoma can appear as a solid homogeneous lesion.[24] The vascular component of the Antoni A area is likely responsible for the poor contrast intake. In our case, as reported by Nishikawa et al.,[5] the lesion was hypoenhanced, compared to the surrounding pancreatic parenchyma; this feature is common to the pancreatic carcinoma from which schwannoma differs in the well-defined margins and the noninfiltrative behavior. Larger schwannomas with cystic changes mimic the whole spectrum of cystic pancreatic lesions. The preoperative diagnosis of cystic neuroendocrine tumor and of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm may be difficult. The hypoenhanced pattern of schwannoma at CE-EUS may help achieve the diagnosis. Targeting the solid component during FNA is mandatory. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopic UltrasoundSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207