MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775591256 · doi:10.1097/dad.0000000000001066

Granulomatous Tumoral Melanosis Associated With Pembrolizumab Therapy: A Mimicker of Disease Progression in Metastatic Melanoma

2017· article· en· W2775591256 on OpenAlexaff
Randi Woodbeck, Andrei I. Metelitsa, Karen Naert

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Dermatopathology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPembrolizumabMedicineMelanomaSarcoidosisImmunotherapyAdverse effectConcomitantMetastatic melanomaDiseaseDermatologyNivolumabOncologyInternal medicinePathologyCancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma, with these agents significantly improving survival for patients with metastatic disease. With the increasing use of these agents, the number of adverse reactions secondary to their use has also increased. Sarcoidosis and sarcoid-like reactions are one such immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse event. We report a case of sarcoid-like granulomatous tumoral melanosis in a patient on the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor pembrolizumab for metastatic melanoma. This is, to our knowledge, the first reported case of a sarcoidal form of tumoral melanosis in a patient on anti-PD-1 therapy. We postulate that this reflects tumor regression in response to pembrolizumab-induced immune activation, with concomitant therapy-triggered induction of a sarcoid-like reaction. These findings and the literature review presented herein should alert clinicians and pathologists to the possibility of regressed lesions with sarcoid-like features presenting as mimickers of disease progression in patients undergoing immunotherapy for advanced melanoma.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of DermatopathologySame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207