Punch Biopsy for Preoperative Depth of Invasion Assessment in Early Oral Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ImportanceThe inclusion of depth of invasion (DOI) in the American Joint Committee on Cancer's staging system for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) has major clinical implications. Few studies have evaluated the accuracy of preoperative biopsy to predict DOI.ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability of preoperative punch biopsy for measuring DOI in early OTSCC and compare it to evaluation by digital palpation. Secondarily, to assess the punch biopsy's ability to differentiate between carcinoma in situ (Tis) and invasive carcinoma.DesignA prospective single-center cohort study.SettingCenter Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, a tertiary center in Canada.ParticipantsPatients with suspected early stage OTSCC.InterventionPunch biopsy was used to sample the deepest part of tumors to measure biopsy-derived DOI (bDOI). In addition, DOI was estimated via digital palpation: clinical DOI (cDOI) by surgeons.Main Outcome MeasuresPathologic DOI (pDOI) from final histopathology reports was the gold standard. Spearman's correlations were calculated between cDOI, bDOI, and pDOI. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated for the ability to distinguish pDOI of ≥2 mm, and to differentiate Tis from invasive carcinoma.ResultsAmong 27 patients, correlation coefficients between bDOI and pDOI, and cDOI and pDOI were 0.603 (95% CI: 0.202-0.884) and 0.894 (95% CI: 0.749-0.955), respectively. Punch biopsy sensitivity and specificity were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.62-0.98) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.59-0.99) to detect pDOI ≥ 2 mm, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65-0.99) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.42-1.00) for distinguishing Tis from invasive carcinoma. Digital palpation sensitivity and specificity for pDOI ≥ 2 mm were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.57-0.98) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.63-1.00).ConclusionsPunch biopsy and clinical palpation demonstrate high diagnostic yield for identifying lesions with pDOI ≥ 2 mm. Punch biopsy appears to be reliable to distinguish Tis from invasive carcinoma.RelevanceLarger studies are needed to corroborate these findings and assess the role of punch biopsy in guiding elective neck dissection decisions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".