MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S5182 Distinguishing Primary Gastric Leiomyosarcoma From a Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour: A Case Report

2024· article· en· W4403719762 on OpenAlexaff
Amrik Randhawa, Mina Niazi, Branawan Gowrishankar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLeiomyosarcomaStromal cellStromal tumorStomachPrimary (astronomy)PathologyInternal medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Primary gastric leiomyosarcoma (LMS) comprises 1% of stomach tumors. Historically, gastric LMS were misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), but immunohistochemistry allows differentiation. GISTs are positive for CD117, DOG1 and Platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) mutation, whereas gastric LMS tumors are typically positive for smooth muscle actin (SMA) and desmin. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing a gastric LMS from a GIST in a patient with metastatic disease. Case Description/Methods: The patient is a 78-year-old woman diagnosed with a low-grade metastatic gastric LMS, initially presenting with abdominal pain. Imaging visualized a large heterogenous, solid-appearing possibly bilobed lesion suspected to be a GIST. Gastroscopy identified 2 submucosal lesions. Endoscopic guided ultrasound fine-needle aspiration demonstrated a smooth muscle neoplasm. It was desmin and SMA positive, while CD117 and DOG1 negative, consistent with LMS. The patient underwent laparoscopic resection. Pathology was consistent with low-grade LMS with negative margins. Furthermore, mutational analysis of CD117 and PDGRFA were negative, supporting the LMS diagnosis. Post-operative follow-up imaging demonstrated recurrence and the patient was referred for chemotherapy. The LMS was suspected to be responsive to chemotherapy due to its GIST-like behaviour. She received 3 cycles of doxorubicin but unfortunately developed significant side effects and therefore treatment was held. Repeat Computed tomography demonstrated disease progression and the decision was made to pursue palliative treatment. Discussion: Our case report highlights a rare disease entity, as LMS constitutes a small fraction of gastric malignancies. Potential risk factors include chromosomal mutations, radiation, immunosuppression, chemical exposure and infections such as Helicobacter pylorior Epstein-Barr virus. The patient had no prior radiation, chemical exposure, or immunosuppression. Gastric biopsies were negative for Helicobacter pyloriinfection. However, Epstein-Barr virus and chromosomal testing were not conducted. Standard therapy of gastric LMS involves complete laparoscopic or open resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection has been explored but is not common. In metastatic LMS radiation and chemotherapy, with doxorubicin or a regimen of gemcitabine with docetaxel, is described. Yet no robust treatment response is demonstrated with available agents. Histopathologic grade, mucosal ulceration, and presence of metastases harbor poor prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207