Practical Guidance for Measuring and Reporting Surgical Margins in Vulvar Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical resection with free surgical margins is the cornerstone of successful primary treatment of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC). In general reexcision is recommended when the minimum peripheral surgical margin (MPSM) is <8 mm microscopically. Pathologists are, therefore, required to report the minimum distance from the tumor to the surgical margin. Currently, there are no guidelines on how to make this measurement, as this is often considered straightforward. However, during the 2018 Annual Meeting of the British Association of Gynaecological Pathologists (BAGP), a discussion on this topic revealed a variety of opinions with regard to reporting and method of measuring margin clearance in VSCC specimens. Given the need for uniformity and the lack of guidance in the literature, we initiated an online survey in order to deliver a consensus-based definition of peripheral surgical margins in VSCC resections. The survey included questions and representative diagrams of peripheral margin measurements. In total, 57 pathologists participated in this survey. On the basis of consensus results, we propose to define MPSM in VSCC as the minimum distance from the peripheral edge of the invasive tumor nests toward the inked peripheral surgical margin reported in millimeters. This MPSM measurement should run through tissue and preferably be measured in a straight line. Along with MPSM, other relevant measurements such as depth of invasion or tumor thickness and distance to deep margins should be reported. This manuscript provides guidance to the practicing pathologist in measuring MPSM in VSCC resection specimens, in order to promote uniformity in measuring and reporting.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".