RE: [Histonet] FNA'S
|From:||"Stephen Peters M.D." |
The best way I can explain it is when you have seen hundreds of dogs in your life
you learn what they look like and how they behave. Then one day you are pretty
sure you saw a dog fly over the roof of your house. One should be pretty sure
before you decide it is a flying dog. It is a lot more likely that it was a large
Reading cytology is a lot like reading surg path through a pinhole. You use all of
your experience and instincts to put a puzzle together in your mind. By diagnosing
an oat cell without any smearing one would be missing an important piece of
the puzzle and without it you may be looking at a large bat.
Do my pathologist colleagues disagree?
Kemlo Rogerson wrote:
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.............
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
From: Stephen Peters M.D. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Histonet] FNA'S
I agree with you about smear cells. Coincidently, yesterday a colleague
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.
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 >>