The objectives of this article are to illustrate a number of specific morphologic findings in commonly examined fish tissues (e.g., gills, liver, kidney, and gonads) that are frequently either misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed, and to address related issues involving the interpretation of histopathologic data. As a consequence, findings of questionable accuracy may be reported inadvertently, and the potential negative impacts of publishing inaccurate histopathologic interpretations are not always fully appreciated. This is most common for esophageal biopsies for surveillance of Barrett’s, whenever there is a new diagnosis of dysplasia or when you find high-grade dysplasia.All subjects Allied Health Cardiology & Cardiovascular Medicine Dentistry Emergency Medicine & Critical Care Endocrinology & Metabolism Environmental Science General Medicine Geriatrics Infectious Diseases Medico-legal Neurology Nursing Nutrition Obstetrics & Gynecology Oncology Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine Otolaryngology Palliative Medicine & Chronic Care Pediatrics Pharmacology & Toxicology Psychiatry & Psychology Public Health Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine Radiology Research Methods & Evaluation Rheumatology Surgery Tropical Medicine Veterinary Medicine Cell Biology Clinical Biochemistry Environmental Science Life Sciences Neuroscience Pharmacology & Toxicology Biomedical Engineering Engineering & Computing Environmental Engineering Materials Science Anthropology & Archaeology Communication & Media Studies Criminology & Criminal Justice Cultural Studies Economics & Development Education Environmental Studies Ethnic Studies Family Studies Gender Studies Geography Gerontology & Aging Group Studies History Information Science Interpersonal Violence Language & Linguistics Law Management & Organization Studies Marketing & Hospitality Music Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution Philosophy Politics & International Relations Psychoanalysis Psychology & Counseling Public Administration Regional Studies Religion Research Methods & Evaluation Science & Society Studies Social Work & Social Policy Sociology Special Education Urban Studies & Planning BROWSE JOURNALSĭifferentiating salient histopathologic changes from normal anatomic features or tissue artifacts can be decidedly challenging, especially for the novice fish pathologist. Sometimes you’ll need to pull the slides to compare the current tissue with the prior. Just as important is to make sure you check for any prior relevant biopsies. Add a comment to the report: "The endoscopic report has been reviewed." The endoscopic report also usually contains additional history. The endoscopic pictures are the gross pathology for these specimens and thus can help in interpretation of the biopsy findings. The specimen is entirely submitted in one cassette labeled 2A.įor every endoscopic biopsy, review the endoscopic report print it out or save it as a PDF so that the attending can see it when signing out. Specimen #2 is designated “GE junction” and consists of three pink-tan soft tissue fragments ranging in size from 0.4 x 0.3 x 0.2 cm to 0.6 x 0.4 x 0.2 cm. The specimen is entirely submitted in one cassette labeled 1A. Specimen #1 is designated “proximal esophagus” and consists of two pink-tan soft tissue fragments measuring 0.5 x 0.3 x 0.2 cm and 0.6 x 0.3 x 0.2 cm, respectively. The case is received in three formalin filled containers, each labeled with the patient’s name and medical record number. received 3 tiny tissue bits aggregating to 0.2 cm. ![]() (Bouin's is used in some labs, but is losing popularity because it degrades nucleic acids and prevents molecular assays.)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |