Duodenal gangliocytic paraganglioma with lymph node metastasis: A systematic case review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Duodenal gangliocytic paragangliomas (DGPs) are rare tumors, most commonly located in the 2nd portion of the duodenum. Their origin is poorly understood and management is uncertain. Typically benign, they infrequently metastasize to lymph node and distant sites. Objective: A systematic literature search for DGPs with lymph node metastases was performed. Epidemiological, diagnostic, management, surveillance and outcome data were recorded. The histopathology and immunohistochemistry of these tumors and possible predictors of lymph node metastases were revisited. Thirty three cases of DGPs with lymph node metastases were included. Mean patient age was 48 years, with no predilection for sex. Discussion: Presenting complaints included abdominal discomfort and gastrointestinal bleeding/anemia. Tumor size (maximum diameter) ranged from 1 to 9 cm, with a mean of 3.1 cm. Serum/urine tumor markers and hormones were inconsistent. However, there was evidence of neuroendocrine activity. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy successfully identified the lesion in 23/23 reported cases, but had no role in tissue diagnosis. Computed tomography scan and endoscopic ultrasound correctly identified a mass in 84% and 100% of reported cases and were successful in detecting lymph node involvement in 47% and 64% of cases. Pancreatoduodenectomy was the definitive treatment in 87% of the cases. Possible predictors of lymph node metastasis included tumor extension and angiolymphatic invasion, as well as changes noted in immunohistochemistry. Conclusion:We suggest diagnostic aids, management and surveillance for DGPs with lymph node metastases. Due to uncertain malignant potential, surgical management and treatment adjuncts like chemotherapy and radiation should be investigated. Surveillance has not been well established and should be focused on diagnostic imaging and close clinical follow-up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".