Distinct Histologic, Immunohistochemical and Clinical Features Associated With Serous Endometrial Intraepithelial Carcinoma Involving Polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (SEIC) is debated, due to its premalignant and independently malignant nature. It often arises next to endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC), with a propensity for polypoid growth. We aimed to better characterize this discrepancy by analyzing the clinical, histologic, and immunohistochemical features of polypoid carcinoma associated with SEIC (P-SEIC), and compared them with usual endometrial serous carcinoma without SEIC (UESC). Consecutive patients with P-SEIC were recruited and compared with UESC controls from our institutional research center. Clinical, histologic, and immunohistochemical (IHC, ER, PR, P53, Napsin-A, WT1, P16) were analyzed. BRCA testing results and familial history were also extracted from clinical databases. Welch T test, Pearson χ, and Fisher exact test were performed in SPSS version 23. A total of 37 P-SEIC and 25 UESC were the basis of a case-control study. P-SEIC was associated with more bilateral ovarian involvement (P=0.026), yet showed lower rates of myometrial invasion (P=0.002). P-SEIC showed a statistically different IHC profile: p53+, p16+, ER+, PR+, and WT-1+, and high rates of Napsin-A, while UESC was p53+, p16+, WT-1-, Napsin-A-, with lower rates of ER and PR. We also identified 2 patients who received prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA mutations and who subsequently developed P-SEIC with its unique IHC pattern. Our results suggest different underlying expression profiles and possibly diverging molecular signatures between both P-SEIC and UESC. If confirmed in further molecular studies, it could lead to a distinct molecular subclass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".