MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200019541 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0000000000000846

Uterine Sarcoma With FGFR1-TACC1 Gene Fusion: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

2021· review· en· W4200019541 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Zyla, Emily A. Goebel, Ji-Hyun Jang, Gulisa Turashvili

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusion geneSarcomaBiologyEndometrial stromal sarcomaUterine sarcomaPathologyFibroblast growth factor receptor 1Cancer researchGeneMedicineFibroblast growth factorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing availability of RNA sequencing technology in the pathology laboratory, new gene fusion-associated malignancies are increasingly being characterized. In this article, we describe the second ever reported case of a uterine sarcoma harboring a FGFR1-TACC1 gene fusion. The patient, a 53-yr-old perimenopausal woman, was found to have a 6 cm mass spanning the lower uterine segment and endocervix. Histologically, this was a spindle cell neoplasm with coagulative necrosis, moderate cytologic atypia, and increased mitotic activity. By immunohistochemistry, the neoplastic cells coexpressed CD34 and S100, and lacked smooth muscle marker expression. RNA sequencing revealed the presence of a FGFR1-TACC1 gene fusion. This report provides further evidence to suggest that FGFR1-TACC1 may be a recurrent fusion in a subset of uterine sarcomas. RNA sequencing using a panel that includes FGFR-TACC family fusions should be considered for uterine sarcomas that do not fit conventional diagnostic criteria, particularly as tumors with these fusions may be amenable to targeted therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207