Difference between revisions of "User talk:Michael"

==Images==

==Images==

Hi Michael - I'm adding images into Wiki Commons with help from some non-pathologist assistants (OK - they are my kids).  I'm going in after to clean up.  I wont be insulted if anyone wants to remove some of the dodgy images from Libre but I include them as though technically they may be poor, they show something of interest.  Regarding the breast - IMO - if one removes the in between or spongy diagnoses (like 'atypia') and focuses on diagnoses that actually have major effect on treatment, pathologists do great (and at a relatively low cost).  Exceptional cases are thankfully usually pretty rare - including issues such as atypical Spitz vs level 3 melanoma. For these exceptional situations, effort should focus on molecular discriminants as it's pretty clear that routine histo is pretty worthless in those cases.  Unfortunately, much of the 'pathologists suck' literature includes variance in unimportant diagnoses ie mild vs moderate atypia and/or misrepresentations of a few exceptional situations.  BTW - I am going to try to ad a page on triple neg breast CA as that is a confusing issue that ties in to several diagnoses. [[User:Sarah|Sarah]] ([[User talk:Sarah|talk]]) 19:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Hi Michael - I'm adding images into Wiki Commons with help from some non-pathologist assistants (OK - they are my kids).  I'm going in after to clean up.  I wont be insulted if anyone wants to remove some of the dodgy images from Libre but I include them as though technically they may be poor, they show something of interest.  Regarding the breast - IMO - if one removes the in between or spongy diagnoses (like 'atypia') and focuses on diagnoses that actually have major effect on treatment, pathologists do great (and at a relatively low cost).  Exceptional cases are thankfully usually pretty rare - including issues such as atypical Spitz vs level 3 melanoma. For these exceptional situations, effort should focus on molecular discriminants as it's pretty clear that routine histo is pretty worthless in those cases.  Unfortunately, much of the 'pathologists suck' literature includes variance in unimportant diagnoses ie mild vs moderate atypia and/or misrepresentations of a few exceptional situations.  BTW - I am going to try to ad a page on triple neg breast CA as that is a confusing issue that ties in to several diagnoses. [[User:Sarah|Sarah]] ([[User talk:Sarah|talk]]) 19:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)