Pediatric Fibromatosis Lacks the Internal Tandem Duplication of <scp><i>EGFR</i></scp> Seen in Congenital Mesoblastic Nephroma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical and mixed congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) are characterized by an internal tandem duplication (ITD) of the EGFR gene, in contrast to cellular CMN that usually harbors an ETV6::NTRK3 gene fusion. This same fusion occurs in infantile fibrosarcoma, and this tumor can be considered as the soft tissue equivalent of cellular CMN. A soft tissue equivalent of classic/mixed CMN remains undefined at the genetic level. Since classical CMN resembles fibromatosis of soft tissue histologically, we asked whether fibromatosis in children might show EGFR ITD. ITD was investigated using the polymerase chain reaction and primers for exons 18 and 25 of the EGFR gene. Seven of the eight cases of classical or mixed CMN were positive by this approach, but none of the five cellular CMNs. Of 11 cases of fibromatosis (six plantar, two digital, and three desmoid), none were positive for EGFR ITD. Within the limits of this small study, we conclude that pediatric fibromatosis is likely not characterized by EGFR ITD. There are isolated reports of pediatric soft tissue tumors that harbor EGFR ITD, but these have the appearance of infantile fibrosarcoma or mixed CMN rather than fibromatosis. We did not find any such cases, since all 14 cases of infantile fibrosarcoma in our study had an ETV6::NTRK3 fusion. The soft tissue tumors with EGFR ITD are not a morphologic match for the low-grade histology of classical CMN. Whether they have a similar favorable biology or behave more like fibrosarcoma with an ETV6::NTRK3 fusion or an alternative fusion involving other kinases remains to be determined.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".