Verrucous Carcinoma of the Foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Verrucous carcinoma (VC) was first described in 1948 by Dr. Ackerman. It is a low-grade cutaneous squamous carcinoma that usually develops in the oral cavity, the anogenital region, and the plantar surface of the foot. Clinically, there is low suspicion for malignancy given the slow growth of VC lesions and their wart-like appearance. Diagnosis can be difficult because of the benign histological appearance with well-differentiated cells and absence of dysplasia. Surgical excision is the only satisfactory form of treatment for plantar VC; however, this becomes difficult given its benign clinical appearance and the pathologic misinterpretation of the lesion as a benign hyperplasia. While there are case reports and retrospective studies of patients with plantar VC in the literature, we present the largest case series of plantar VC within North America, with recurrence despite negative margins. METHODS: We report on all the plantar VC excised between 2014-2023. We report six cases of VC, their treatment, and their outcomes. RESULTS: Six patients obtained a diagnosis of plantar VC by incisional biopsy. All patients underwent excision of their lesions and had negative margins reported on the final pathology. All patients developed nonhealing wounds at the site of their lesion excision; therefore, biopsies were performed to confirm a recurrence. All patients had a recurrence of VC at the initial site. All patients underwent re-excision of the lesions. Despite negative margins again on final pathology, all patients had a subsequent second recurrence. Ultimately, all patients underwent an amputation as definitive management. Each patient had an average of 3 operations. There were 4 different surgeons and different pathologists reporting their findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with plantar VC suggests that an aggressive approach to surgical management is needed. Furthermore, management is optimized with the combined expertise of an experienced dermatopathologist and surgeon. Despite negative margins and repeated excisions, VC lesions recur and invade local tissues to the extent that only amputation of the involved foot has resulted in cure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".