<i>BRAF</i> Exon 15 Mutations in the Evaluation of Well-Differentiated Epithelial Nephroblastic Neoplasms in Children: A Report From the Children’s Oncology Group Study AREN03B2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: The distinction between well-differentiated epithelial favorable-histology Wilms tumor (EFHWT) and metanephric adenoma (MA) in children has historically been determined by the required absence of both a fibrous pseudocapsule and mitotic activity in MA. More recently these features have been allowed in adult MA. Mutations in exon 15 of the BRAF gene are reported in up to 88% of MAs but have not been reported in EFHWTs in children lacking MA features. OBJECTIVE.—: To clarify the pathologic and molecular features used to distinguish between pediatric MA and EFHWT. DESIGN.—: Stage I epithelial tumors classified as EFHWT on central review (36 patients) were identified from the Children's Oncology Group AREN03B2 study. Thirteen tumors had morphologic features overlapping those of MA and 23 lacked such features; 35 of 36 had tissue available for sequencing of BRAF. RESULTS.—: Patients with EFHWTs with MA features (13) were older (mean, 8.4 versus 1.9 years; P < .001), had smaller tumor diameters (mean, 6.0 versus 9.7 cm; P < .001), and had fewer mitoses (mean, 1 versus 48 mitoses per 10 high-power fields; P < .001) than patients with EFHWT lacking MA features (23). All EFHWTs with MA features contained at least a partial fibrous pseudocapsule; 7 of 12 (58%) had a BRAF exon 15 mutation. No BRAF exon 15 mutations were identified in 23 EFHWTs lacking MA features. None of the 13 EFHWT patients with MA features have experienced relapse (median follow-up 5.9 years). CONCLUSIONS.—: Pediatric epithelial neoplasms with features of MA that show partial encapsulation and/or modest mitotic activity may be classified as MAs. Although BRAF mutation supports the diagnosis of MA, it is not required for the diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".