Oncogenic <i>BRAF</i> and <i>KRAS</i> mutations in endosalpingiosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Endosalpingiosis, a microscopic lesion composed of ectopic Fallopian tube epithelium, frequently involves the peritoneum and lymph nodes in patients with ovarian serous borderline tumour or low‐grade serous carcinoma, but its pathogenic significance remains unclear. Using laser‐capture microdissection and droplet digital PCR, we investigated whether endosalpingiosis harbours the driver mutations in BRAF and KRAS that characterise ovarian low‐grade serous neoplasms. Somatic mutations were detected in 14 (33%) of 43 endosalpingiotic lesions analysed. Of 21 women with endosalpingiosis associated with a synchronous or metachronous ovarian low‐grade serous tumour, mutations were identified in endosalpingiotic lesions from 11 (52%) women, with most cases (10/11, 91%) demonstrating identical mutations in both tumour and endosalpingiosis. In contrast, of 13 cases of endosalpingiosis not associated with an ovarian tumour, only one harboured a KRAS mutation. The proliferative activity as assessed by Ki‐67 immunohistochemistry was lower in endosalpingiosis than in low‐grade serous tumours, and endosalpingiosis with either a BRAF or KRAS mutation had a significantly lower Ki‐67 index than those without. Ectopic expression of KRASG12V in Fallopian tube epithelial cells led to ERK phosphorylation, p21 induction, growth arrest and cellular senescence. In conclusion, we demonstrate that endosalpingiosis represents an interesting example of cancer driver mutations in deceptively normal‐appearing cells, which may be prone to neoplastic transformation upon bypass of endogenous oncosuppressive mechanisms. © 2019 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".