Expanding the histological spectrum of salivary gland neoplasms with <i>HMGA2::WIF1</i> fusion emphasising their malignant potential: a report of eight cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Recently, HMGA2::WIF1 fusion has been reported in pleomorphic adenoma (PAs) originating from the parotid gland with a characteristic canalicular adenoma (CAA)-like pattern. However, it is unclear whether HMGA2::WIF1 fusion may occur in salivary gland carcinoma or tumours originating from the minor salivary glands. We herein conducted a detailed clinicopathological review of eight salivary gland tumours harbouring HMGA2::WIF1 fusions. METHODS AND RESULTS: The reviewed diagnoses of salivary gland neoplasms with HMGA2::WIF1 fusion were PA (n = four), myoepithelioma (n = one), myoepithelial carcinoma ex PA (n = two) and high-grade carcinoma with basaloid features (n = one). Two tumours originated from the minor salivary glands. Six tumours (80%) contained areas reminiscent of CAA characterised by interconnected trabeculae/canaliculi of monotonous oncocytic or cuboidal tumour cells associated with a hypocellular, hyalinised to myxoid stroma. Areas typical of PA were seen in four (50%) cases. All tumours showed diffuse S100 and CK7 immunopositivity. Adverse events were detected in two cases, including local recurrence in a patient with PA, and local and distant recurrences and disease-related death in a patient with a high-grade carcinoma of the minor salivary gland of the buccal space, showing tumour necrosis and perineural invasion. CONCLUSION: Salivary gland neoplasms with HMGA2::WIF1 fusion are predominantly characterised by CAA/striated duct adenoma-like histology and a S100+/CK7+ immunoprofile. These tumours are not always benign, as among all reported cases approximately 20% showed malignancy (six of 28) and adverse outcome (three of 15), including recurrence, distant metastasis and disease-specific mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".