MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382501472 · doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000002091

Palisading Adenocarcinoma

2023· article· en· W4382501472 on OpenAlexaff
Justin A. Bishop, Ilan Weinreb, Chris Van Vliet, Connull Leslie, Yoshitaka Utsumi, Shinichi Aishima, Junichi Shiraishi, Masamichi Koyama, Yoshiharu Nara, Masatomo Kimura, Doreen N. Palsgrove, Ying‐Ju Kuo, Ralph Gilbert, Jeffrey Gagan, Masato Nakaguro, Toshitaka Nagao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyCytokeratinAdenocarcinomaImmunohistochemistryMerkel cellPerineural invasionSynaptophysinEosinophilicSalivary glandLymphovascular invasionBiologyStromaMerkel cell carcinomaCarcinomaMedicineMetastasisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adenocarcinoma, not otherwise specified (NOS) is a heterogenous group of salivary gland tumors that likely contains distinct tumors that have not yet been characterized. Indeed, in recent years, cases previously diagnosed as adenocarcinoma, NOS have been recategorized into novel tumor designations such as secretory carcinoma, microsecretory adenocarcinoma, and sclerosing microcystic adenocarcinoma. We sought to describe a distinctive, hitherto-undescribed salivary gland tumor encountered in the authors' practices. Cases were pulled from the surgical pathology archives of the authors' institutions. Histologic, immunohistochemical, and clinical findings were tabulated, and targeted next-generation sequencing was performed on all cases. Nine cases were identified, arising in 8 women and 1 man ranging from 45 to 74 years (mean, 56.7 y). Seven tumors (78%) arose in the sublingual gland, while 2 (22%) arose in the submandibular gland. The cases shared a distinctive morphologic appearance. They were biphasic, with ducts scattered among a predominant polygonal cell with round nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and pale eosinophilic cytoplasm. These cells were arranged as trabeculae and palisaded as pseudorosettes around hyalinized stroma and vessels, resembling a neuroendocrine tumor. Four of the cases were well-circumscribed, while the remaining 5 showed infiltrative growth including perineural invasion in 2 (22%) and lymphovascular invasion in 1 (11%). Mitotic rates were low (mean, 2.2/10 HPFs); necrosis was absent. By immunohistochemistry, the predominant cell type was strongly positive for CD56 (9 of 9) and variably positive for pan-cytokeratin (AE1/AE3) (7 of 9) with patchy S100 (4 of 9), but negative for synaptophysin (0 of 9) and chromogranin (0 of 9), while the ducts were strongly positive for pan-cytokeratin (AE1/AE3) (9 of 9) and CK5/6 (7 of 7). Next-generation sequencing did not reveal any fusions or obvious driver mutations. All cases were resected surgically, with external beam radiation also done in 1 case. Follow-up was available in 8 cases; there were no metastases or recurrences after 4 to 160 months (mean, 53.1 mo). A dual population of scattered ducts with a predominance of CD56-positive neuroendocrine-like cells characterizes a unique salivary gland tumor which is often encountered in the sublingual glands of women, for which we propose the term "palisading adenocarcinoma." Although the tumor was biphasic and had a neuroendocrine-like appearance, it lacked convincing immunohistochemical evidence of myoepithelial or neuroendocrine differentiation. Although a subset showed unequivocally invasive growth, this tumor appears to behave in an indolent manner. Moving forward, recognition of palisading adenocarcinoma and its separation from other salivary adenocarcinomas, NOS will facilitate a better understanding of the characteristics of this previously unrecognized tumor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207