RE: [Histonet] FNA'S

From:Kemlo Rogerson

Maybe that is the problem on relying on an artefact to aid diagnosis? My
point is how you know if the artefact is just absent for an undisclosed
reason rather than the cells being unable biologically to submit themselves.

I am no expert but IMHO it must be better science to make sure what you see
reflects in vivo cells as much as is practicable. Despite the cells being
dead, dried, fixed, stained, um.............  

Kemlo Rogerson
Pathology Manager
Ext  3311
DD   01934 647057
Mob 07749 754194

"Following the line of least resistance makes both men and rivers crooked"


This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform
me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Peters M.D. [] 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Histonet] FNA'S

Hi Terry,
  I agree with you about  smear cells. Coincidently, yesterday a colleague
brought me 
  a case he thought was oat cell. Nuclei were typical neuroendocrine salt
   pepper, but there was no smearing at all, and many nice intact clusters.
I was 
  very reluctant to agree with  oat cell and questioned whether it was a
  better differentiated neuroendocrine tumor or even an adeno masquerading.
I think the absence of this can also be a clue. 
  I remember the smearing being referred to as Azzopardi Phenomenon in my
training but now that you mention it I have seen the changes you referred to
under this name.
   I stand corrected. 

Histonet mailing list

Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>