Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers: IV: Current and Future Utilization of Molecular-Genetic Tests for Testicular Germ Cell Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) organized a Consultation Conference in March 2019 dealing with applications of molecular pathology in Urogenital Pathology, including testicular tumors (with a focus on germ cell tumors [GCTs]), preceded by a survey among its members to get insight into current practices in testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) diagnostics and adoption of the ISUP immunohistochemical guidelines published in 2014. On the basis of the premeeting survey, the most commonly used immunomarker panel includes OCT3/4, placental alkaline phosphate, D2-40, SALL4, CD117, and CD30 for GCTs and the documentation of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). Molecular testing, specifically 12p copy gain, is informative to distinguish non-GCNIS versus GCNIS related GCTs, and establishing germ cell origin of tumors both in the context of primary and metastatic lesions. Other molecular methodologies currently available but not widely utilized for TGCTs include genome-wide and targeted approaches for specific genetic anomalies, P53 mutations, genomic MDM2 amplification, and detection of the p53 inactivating miR-371a-3p. The latter also holds promise as a serum marker for malignant TGCTs. This manuscript provides an update on the classification of TGCTs, and describes the current and future role of molecular-genetic testing. The following recommendations are made: (1) Presence of GCNIS should be documented in all cases along with extent of spermatogenesis; (2) Immunohistochemical staining is optional in the following scenarios: identification of GCNIS, distinguishing embryonal carcinoma from seminoma, confirming presence of yolk sac tumor and/or choriocarcinoma, and differentiating spermatocytic tumor from potential mimics; (3) Detection of gain of the short arm of chromosome 12 is diagnostic to differentiate between non-GCNIS versus GCNIS related GCTs and supportive to the germ cell origin of both primary and metastatic tumors.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".