Condylomatous Sinonasal Papilloma—A Distinct (Fourth) Subtype That is Commonly Associated With Low-risk Human Papillomavirus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverted papilloma (IP) is a benign neoplasm of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, known for its variable risk of recurrence and potential for developing carcinoma. Emerging evidence has shown high rates of activating EGFR mutation, and a smaller subset is associated with low-risk human papillomavirus (lrHPV). While certain morphologic features, including an inverted growth pattern, are well-established, the presence of condylomatous features, such as large fungating lesions with thick undulating surface epithelium, hyperkeratosis, cytoplasmic clearing, raisinoid nuclei, and binucleation (koilocytic changes) in low-risk HPV-associated IP suggests that these tumors may be a distinct subtype of sinonasal papilloma (SP) with features similar to low-risk HPV-associated anogenital condylomas. This study presents a series of SP with condylomatous morphology and explores the association with lrHPV, the clinicopathologic features, and the rates of carcinoma development. In total, 17 cases of SP exhibiting condylomatous morphology were retrospectively identified. We performed lrHPV and high-risk HPV (hrHPV) RNA in situ hybridization and p16 immunohistochemistry and gathered detailed clinical and pathologic data along with treatment, disease follow-up, and outcomes. These condylomatous papillomas almost all developed in active smokers, were large, were primarily located in the nasal cavity (47%), and showed frequent transformation to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (29%). This malignant transformation rate is much higher than what has been reported for inverted, exophytic, and oncocytic papillomas. The tumors were almost uniformly associated with transcriptionally-active lrHPV (94%) and were consistently negative for p16 and hrHPV. This study shows that a subgroup of IPs with condylomatous morphology have a predilection for the nasal cavity, strong association with lrHPV, and high rates of carcinoma. These findings support the concept that these tumors are a distinct (fourth) type of SP with a higher risk of malignant transformation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".