Low-grade Hidradenocarcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hidradenocarcinomas are rare cutaneous adnexal malignancies with sweat gland differentiation that can show a broad spectrum of histomorphologic appearances, ranging from low to high grade. The diagnosis of low-grade hidradenocarcinoma can be challenging and may be mistaken for benign hidradenomas, especially on superficial and partial samples. We performed a retrospective analysis of 16 low-grade hidradenocarcinomas, obtained from 4 large academic institutions. All neoplasms presented clinically as nodular lesions that ranged in size from 1.5 to 6.0 cm. All patients were adults and their age ranged from 33 to 74 years of age. All cases shared features similar to hidradenomas in the surface and mid portion of the tumors and all tumors had 1 or more histomorphologic clues to malignancy, including the presence of an asymmetric and infiltrative growth pattern (especially at the base of the tumors), perineurial invasion, and a desmoplastic stromal reaction. In the tumors evaluated for immunohistochemistry, the tumor cells were positive for p63, EMA, AE1/AE3, MNF116, and CK7. Three patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy, and 2 cases showed metastatic disease to regional lymph nodes. All cases (including the 2 cases that had regional lymph node metastasis), showed no local recurrence or distant metastasis observed after a complete re-excision of the tumors (follow-up range from 6 to 72 mo). Our study highlights the salient clinical and histopathologic features of low-grade hidradenocarcinomas and emphasizes the potential diagnostic pitfalls in distinguishing this entity from other neoplasms. Our results indicate that a combination of thorough histopathologic inspection is necessary to support the diagnosis of this rare neoplasm. These tumors can be exceedingly difficult to diagnose and awareness of the subtle features of low-grade hidradenocarcinoma is of importance are as it remains a diagnostic challenge for practicing pathologists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".