MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Microcystic Adnexal Carcinoma

2019· article· en· W2955886803 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon Worley, Joshua L. Owen, Christopher A. Barker, Ramona Behshad, Christopher K. Bichakjian, Diana Bolotin, Jeremy S. Bordeaux, Scott H. Bradshaw, Todd V. Cartee, Sunandana Chandra, Nancy Cho, Jennifer N. Choi, Daniel B. Eisen, Nicholas Golda, Conway C. Huang, Sherrif F. Ibrahim, Shang I. Brian Jiang, John Kim, Mario Lacutoure, Naomi Lawrence, Erica H. Lee, Justin J. Leitenberger, Ian A. Maher, Margaret Mann, Kira Minkis, Bharat B. Mittal, Kishwer S. Nehal, Isaac Neuhaus, David Ozog, Brian Petersen, Faramarz H. Samie, Thuzar M. Shin, Joseph F. Sobanko, Ally-Khan Somani, William G. Stebbins, J. Regan Thomas, Valencia D. Thomas, David Tse, Abigail Waldman, Yaohui G. Xu, Siegrid S. Yu, Nathalie C. Zeitouni, Tim Ramsay, Emily Poon, Murad Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Dermatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer and Skin Lesions
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineMohs surgerySweat glandCarcinomaMEDLINEBiopsyCochrane LibraryDermatologyMeta-analysisSurgeryPathologyInternal medicineSWEAT

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC) occurs primarily in older adults of white race/ethnicity on sun-exposed skin of the head and neck. There are no formal guiding principles based on expert review of the evidence to assist clinicians in providing the highest-quality care for patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the care of adults with MAC. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of the literature (1990 to June 2018) was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The keywords searched were microcystic adnexal carcinoma, sclerosing sweat gland carcinoma, sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma, syringomatous carcinoma, malignant syringoma, sweat gland carcinoma with syringomatous features, locally aggressive adnexal carcinoma, and combined adnexal tumor. A multidisciplinary expert committee critically evaluated the literature to create recommendations for clinical practice. Statistical analysis was used to estimate optimal surgical margins. FINDINGS: In total, 55 studies met our inclusion criteria. The mean age of 1968 patients across the studies was 61.8 years; 54.1% were women. Recommendations were generated for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of MAC. There are 5 key findings of the expert committee based on the available evidence: (1) A suspect skin lesion requires a deep biopsy that includes subcutis. (2) MAC confined to the skin is best treated by surgery that examines the surrounding and deep edges of the tissue removed (Mohs micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment). (3) Radiotherapy can be considered as an adjuvant for MAC at high risk for recurrence, surgically unresectable tumors, or patients who cannot have surgery for medical reasons. (4) Patients should be seen by a physician familiar with MAC every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years after treatment. Patient education on photoprotection, periodic skin self-examination, postoperative healing, and the possible normal changes in local sensation (eg, initial hyperalgesia) should be considered. (5) There is limited evidence to guide the treatment of metastasis in MAC due to its rarity. Limitations of our findings are that the medical literature on MAC comprises only retrospective reviews and descriptions of individual patients and there are no controlled studies to guide management. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The presented clinical practice guidelines provide an outline for the diagnosis and management of MAC. Future efforts using multi-institutional registries may improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in patients with lymph node or nerve involvement, the role of radiotherapy, and the treatment of metastatic MAC with drug therapy.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0220.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0120.006
Research integrity0.0120.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations79
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA DermatologySame topicCancer and Skin LesionsFrench-language works237,207