Adrenocortical cancer recurrence following initial transcutaneous biopsy: a rare demonstration of needle tract seeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Needle tract seeding is a potential, albeit rare, complication following transcutaneous biopsies, leading to the seeding of tumor cells along the path of the needle. Biopsies of adrenal masses are not routinely recommended and are only indicated, after exclusion of pheochromocytoma, when an adrenal metastasis of a primary extra-adrenal cancer is suspected or when pathological confirmation of inoperable adrenocortical cancer (ACC) may impact treatment. Despite guideline recommendations to avoid primary adrenal biopsy, very few needle tract seeding cases have been reported and none were in the context of an ACC. We report the occurrence of needle tract seeding in a patient following adrenal transcutaneous biopsy leading to ACC abdominal wall recurrence. Learning points: Needle tract seeding is a rare complication of transcutaneous biopsy. It may increase morbidity and impact overall survival. It has yet to be documented in adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC).Adrenal masses can be accurately evaluated for malignancy using a combination of conventional and metabolic imaging, such as CT and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, obviating the need for biopsies.Adrenal mass biopsy is not indicated in ACC unless advanced ACC is diagnosed, and a pathological confirmation would impact management.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".