|
| ||
|
|
||
Breast Pathology (breast + pathology)
Selected AbstractsIntegration of Professionalism and Volunteerism in Building the Foundation of the "International Institute of Breast Pathology" A Worldwide CollaborationTHE BREAST JOURNAL, Issue 2 2008Shahla Masood MD No abstract is available for this article. [source] Raising the Bar: A Plea for Standardization and Quality Improvement in the Practice of Breast PathologyTHE BREAST JOURNAL, Issue 5 2006Shahla Masood MD Editor-In-Chief First page of article [source] Poster Session 3 , Breast pathologyAPMIS, Issue 2010Article first published online: 20 MAR 2010 First page of article [source] An audit of ,equivocal' (C3) and ,suspicious' (C4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breastCYTOPATHOLOGY, Issue 4 2001R. A. Deb An audit of ,equivocal' (C3) and ,suspicious' (C4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast We have audited the frequency of use and outcome of the ,equivocal/atypia probably benign' (C3) and ,suspicious of malignancy' (C4) category for breast cytology in our Unit. A total of 14 935 cytological specimens were reported by at least one of the three pathologists with a special interest in breast pathology, according to five categories of the NHSBSP guidelines for cytology reporting, 1992; 3.7% (555 cases) and 3.9% (587 cases) of cases were classified as equivocal (C3) and suspicious (C4), respectively, giving a total rate (C3 + C4) of 7.6%. Of the C3 cases, 68% were subsequently benign and 32% were malignant. Of the C4 cases, 19% were subsequently benign and 81% malignant. The commonest benign lesions in both categories were fibroadenomas (7.6% of C3 and 19.8% of C4), fibrocystic change (14.3% of C3 and 12.5% of C4), radial scars (6.2% of C3 and 10.4% of C4) and papillomas (6.2% of C3 and 6.3% of C4). Of the malignant lesions (particularly those classified as C3), a high proportion were low grade or special type cancers. The categories of atypia probably benign (C3) and suspicious of malignancy (C4) in breast cytology provide a strategy for classification of problematic or uncertain cases; this maintains the predictive value of the benign (C2) and malignant (C5) categories, and allows separation of these difficult cases into clinically useful groups with differing probabilities of malignancy. [source] Why Current Breast Pathology Practices Must Be Evaluated.THE BREAST JOURNAL, Issue 5 2007A Susan G. Komen for the Cure White Paper: June 200 To this end, the organization has a strong interest and proven track record in ensuring public investment in quality breast health and breast cancer care. Recently, Susan G. Komen for the Cure identified major issues in the practice of pathology that have a negative impact on the lives of thousands of breast cancer patients in the United States. These issues were identified through a comprehensive literature review and interviews conducted in 2005,2006 with experts in oncology, breast pathology, surgery, and radiology. The interviewees practiced in community, academic, and cooperative group settings. Komen for the Cure has identified four areas that have a direct impact on the quality of care breast cancer patients receive in the United States, the accuracy of breast pathology diagnostics, the effects of current health insurance, and reimbursement policies on patients who are evaluated for a possible breast cancer diagnosis, the substantial decrease in tissue banking participation, particularly during a time of rapid advances in biologically correlated clinical science and the role for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, pathology professional societies and the Federal government in ensuring that breast pathology practices meet the highest possible standards in the United States Concerns surrounding the quality and practice of breast pathology are not limited to diagnostic accuracy. Other considerations include, training and proficiency of pathologists who are evaluating breast specimens, the lack of integration of pathologists in the clinical care team, inadequate compensation for the amount of work required to thoroughly analyze specimens, potential loss in translational research as a result of medical privacy regulations, and the lack of mandatory uniform pathology practice standards without any way to measure the degree of variation or to remedy it. [source] Breast pathology guideline implementation in low- and middle-income countries,CANCER, Issue S8 2008Shahla Masood MD Abstract The quality of breast healthcare delivery and the ultimate clinical outcome for patients with breast cancer are directly related to the quality of breast pathology practices within the healthcare system. The Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) held its third Global Summit in Budapest, Hungary from October 1 to 4, 2007, bringing together internationally recognized experts to address the implementation of breast healthcare guidelines for the early detection, diagnosis, and treatment in low-income and middle-income countries (LMCs). From this group, a subgroup of experts met to address the specific needs and concerns related to breast pathology program implementation in LMCs. Specific recommendations were made by the group and process indicators identified in the areas of personnel and training, cytology and histopathology interpretation, accuracy of pathology interpretation, pathology reporting, tumor staging, causes of diagnostic errors, use of immunohistochemical markers, and special requirements to facilitate breast conservation therapy. The group agreed that the financial burden of establishing and maintaining breast pathology services is counterbalanced by the cost savings from decreased adverse effects and excessive use of treatment resources that result from incorrect or incomplete pathologic diagnosis. Proper training in breast pathology for pathologists and laboratory technicians is critical and provides the underpinnings of programmatic success for any country at any level of economic wealth. Cancer 2008;113(8 suppl):2297,304. © 2008 American Cancer Society. [source] | ||||||||||