Co-occurring IPMN and pancreatic cancer: the same or different? An overview from histology to molecular pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is one of the most well-established precursors of pancreatic cancer. Its progression to acquire invasiveness is a complex process, based on the accumulation of morphological and genetic alterations. Recent advances in DNA sequencing also showed that co-occurring IPMNs and pancreatic cancers could be totally independent, further complicating our understanding of this complex scenario. The distinction between IPMN and related pancreatic cancer vs IPMN and co-occurring-but not related-pancreatic cancer is a challenging task in routine diagnostic activity, but may have important implications for precision oncology. Of note, recent multiregional sequencing-based studies focused not only on IPMN multi-step tumourigenesis, but also on the divergent intratumoural heterogeneity of this neoplasm. Globally considered, there are three different situations in which co-occurring IPMNs and invasive carcinomas can be found in the same pancreata, indicated with different terminologies: (1) IPMN-associated carcinoma: this definition indicates a carcinoma arising from an IPMN and can be also defined as IPMN-derived carcinoma, sequential or likely related; (2) independent IPMN and invasive carcinoma: the two lesions are not related, and this situation is defined as concomitant, de novo or likely independent; (3) branch-off pathway, where an invasive carcinoma and an adjacent IPMN develop divergently in a forked fashion from a common ancestral clone. In this review, we aim at clarifying the most important nomenclature/definitions of these different situations, also providing an overview of the molecular state-of-the-art and of the clinical implications of this complex landscape.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".