Cervical Adenosquamous Carcinoma: Detailed Analysis of Morphology, Immunohistochemical Profile, and Outcome in 59 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although both the 2014 and 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria require unequivocal glandular and squamous differentiation for a diagnosis of cervical adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC), in practice, ASC diagnoses are often made in tumors that lack unequivocal squamous and/or glandular differentiation. Considering the ambiguous etiologic, morphologic, and clinical features and outcomes associated with ASCs, we sought to redefine these tumors. We reviewed slides from 59 initially diagnosed ASCs (including glassy cell carcinoma and related lesions) to confirm an ASC diagnosis only in the presence of unequivocal malignant glandular and squamous differentiation. Select cases underwent immunohistochemical profiling as well as human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by in situ hybridization. Of the 59 cases originally classified as ASCs, 34 retained their ASC diagnosis, 9 were reclassified as pure invasive stratified mucin-producing carcinomas, 10 as invasive stratified mucin-producing carcinomas with other components (such as HPV-associated mucinous, usual-type, or ASCs), and 4 as HPV-associated usual or mucinous adenocarcinomas with benign-appearing squamous metaplasia. Two glassy adenocarcinomas were reclassified as poorly differentiated HPV-associated carcinomas based on morphology and immunophenotype. There were no significant immunophenotypic differences between ASCs and pure invasive stratified mucin-producing carcinomas with regard to HPV and other markers including p16 expression. Although limited by a small sample size, survival outcomes seemed to be similar between all groups. ASCs should be diagnosed only in the presence of unequivocal malignant glandular and squamous differentiation. The 2 putative glassy cell carcinomas studied did not meet our criteria for ASC and categorizing them as such should be reconsidered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".