MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000445735 · doi:10.1159/000504984

Muir-Torre Syndrome Associated Periocular Sebaceous Neoplasms: Screening Patterns in the Literature and in Clinical Practice

2020· review· en· W3000445735 on OpenAlexaff
Maya Eiger‐Moscovich, Ralph C. Eagle, Carol L. Shields, Hilary Racher, Sara E. Lally, Rona Z. Silkiss, Jerry A. Shields, Tatyana Milman

Bibliographic record

VenueOcular Oncology and Pathology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSebaceous carcinomaMalignancyDermatologyInternal medicinePathologyCarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is defined clinically as the association of cutaneous sebaceous neoplasm and visceral malignancy. Ancillary tests are considered crucial for diagnosis. Although screening guidelines for MTS, including the Mayo MTS scoring system, have been proposed, there are no ophthalmic site-specific guidelines. SUMMARY: A literature review conducted by PubMed search for articles describing patients with periocular sebaceous neoplasm and MTS disclosed 31 publications describing 60 patients, 36 (60%) of whom fulfilled clinical criteria for MTS, 6 (10%) whose diagnosis was based on screening ancillary studies, 14 (23%) who fulfilled clinical criteria and had supporting screening ancillary studies, and 4 (7%) who fulfilled clinical criteria and had supporting diagnostic genetic testing. Most patients were male (34 vs. 15 females), with a median age of 59 years (range 37-79 years). The most common diagnosis was sebaceous carcinoma (40/60, 67%), followed by sebaceous adenoma (16/60, 27%), followed by other tumors with sebaceous differentiation (4/60, 6%). The periocular lesions were identified prior to visceral malignancy in 10 out of 45 (22%) cases, after visceral malignancy in 34 out of 45 (76%) cases, and concurrently with visceral malignancy in 1 out of 45 (2%) cases. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins was performed in 41 out of 60 (68%) and 14 out of 38 (37%) of the tumors had lost MSH2. Based on Mayo-MTS scores of 2 or greater, and after removing visceral malignancies not included in their scoring algorithm, 26 out of 30 of patients (87%) with complete data were considered to be appropriate candidates for further work-up. A survey of current practice was conducted by questionnaires, distributed to ophthalmic pathologists, ocular oncologists, and oculoplastic surgeons from national and international professional societies. Of the 103 physicians who participated in the survey, 91 (88%) felt that MTS evaluation guidelines were not sufficiently clear. KEY MESSAGES: Our findings suggest that Mayo MTS screening guidelines may be applicable to periocular sebaceous neoplasms. The uncertainty of ophthalmic specialists about optimal screening guidelines for MTS reflects the heterogeneity of defining criteria for MTS and limited molecular genetic data. Larger studies with detailed clinical, histopathologic, and molecular genetic data are required to formally assess screening guidelines for MTS in patients with periocular sebaceous neoplasms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.359 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcular Oncology and PathologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207