Tumor-Stroma Ratio in Basaloid and Conventional Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Prognostic Significance and Concordance in Paired Biopsies and Surgical Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC) is a subtype of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) associated with a poor prognosis. Tumor–stroma ratio (TSR) has been introduced as a prognostic feature in many solid tumors. TSR was investigated in a series of laryngeal BSCCs and compared with a group of stage-matched conventional SCCs (cSCCs), in both preoperative and surgical specimens, with the intent of ascertaining the more aggressive behavior of BSCC and verifying the presence of stromal-related causes. A series of 14 consecutive laryngeal BSCCs and a control group of 28 stage-matched conventional cSCCs were analyzed. A higher nodal metastasis presence was found in BSCCs (57.1% vs. 28.6%). The recurrence rate was 33.5% and 63.6% in the cSCC and BSCC groups; disease-free survival (DFS) was higher, though not significantly, in patients with cSCC. TSR, large cell nests, and tumor budding showed a moderate to very good agreement, and stroma type a good to very good agreement between biopsies and surgical specimens in the cSCC group. In the BSCC group, agreement was poor to very good for TSR and stroma type, and good to very good for large cell nests and tumor budding. Age was the only feature significant in predicting recurrence in the BSCC group (p = 0.0235). In cSCC, TSR low/stroma rich cases, when evaluated on biopsies or surgical specimens, were associated with lower DFS (p = 0.0036; p = 0.0041, respectively). Laryngeal BSCCs showed a lower DFS than cSCCs, even if statistical significance was not reached. TSR, evaluated in laryngeal biopsies and excised tumors, was prognostic in terms of DFS in cSCC but not in BSCC cases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".