PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10711232

Molecular pathology and future developments.

Abstract

There has already been a 'molecular' revolution in pathology. Demonstrating transcription of specific single genes or small gene sets and their protein products by in situ hybridisation and immunocytochemistry is routine in diagnostic and experimental pathology. A perhaps-greater revolution is imminent with the application of more recently established and emergent technologies in pathology. These include new approaches to polymerase chain reaction (PCR); simultaneous studies of multiple genes and their expression using oligonucleotide and cDNA arrays; serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE); expressed sequence tag (EST) sequencing, subtractive cloning and differential display; high-throughput sequencing; comparative genomic hybridization, multiplex fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) (spectral karyotyping); reverse chromosome painting; knockout and transgenic organisms; laser microdissection and micro-machining; and new methods in bio-informatics, 'data mining' and data visualisation. Molecular methods will profoundly change diagnosis, prognosis and treatment targeting in oncology and elucidate fundamental mechanisms of neoplastic transformation. Individual susceptibility to specific diseases will become assessable and screening will be refined. The new molecular biology will be most fruitful in partnership with classical approaches to pathology: the expectation that molecular methods alone will answer all pathological questions is unrealistic. A further challenge for the biomedical community in the 'genome era' will be to ensure that the benefits of these sophisticated technologies are enjoyed globally.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J J Going, B A Gusterson. 1999. Molecular pathology and future developments.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00253-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The accurate diagnosis, staging, and grading of bladder neoplasms depend heavily on the interpretation of biopsies and transurethral resection (TUR) specimens. Although many centers require review of outside pathologic material before definitive treatment such as radical cystectomy, the authors are unaware of data supporting the utility of this approach in urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma. The authors therefore examined the clinical and cost impact of pathologic review on patients referred to an academic urology department for treatment of bladder neoplasia. METHODS: The pathologic material from 97 patients referred to an academic center for evaluation of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder from July 1996 to July 1999 was reviewed. This material was received from 30 community hospitals and 4 academic centers. The 97 patients had undergone 131 (mean, 1.35; range, 1-10) biopsies or TUR procedures before referral. Surgical pathologists at the authors' institution reviewed all outside patient material, and discordant cases were rereviewed by one of the authors (S.E.M), an experienced genitourinary pathologist. Follow-up chart review was performed in discordant cases to determine clinical and pathologic outcomes. RESULTS: Upon review at the authors' institution, 24 of 131 (18%) specimens with a referring diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma exhibited significant discrepancies with regard to the diagnosis, stage, grade, or tumor histologic type made at the outside institution. Four tumors (3%) were found to be nonurothelial neoplasms. Five specimens (4%) were judged inadequate for staging because they contained no muscularis propria. Three patients were upstaged, including two patients shown to have muscle invasive disease. Eight patients were downstaged, including two patients referred with purported muscle invasive disease who were determined to have only superficial disease on pathology review. Two patients initially thought to have carcinoma in situ (tumor in situ [Tis]) showed no evidence of Tis on pathology review. One patient with purported muscle invasive disease was shown to have only metaplasia, and one patient had a highly significant change in tumor grade. As a result of the pathology review, five radical cystectomies were avoided, whereas five repeat TUR procedures were recommended for inadequate staging. One patient shown to have muscle invasion on pathology review proceeded directly to cystectomy, avoiding a planned repeat TUR. A cystectomy also was recommended to a second patient who was shown to have invasive disease by the pathology review. Pathology review of 131 specimens resulted in net savings of $86,176 or $658 per TUR reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The review of bladder pathologic materials before definitive therapy can impact clinical decisions significantly and can reduce overall expenditures for the management of this cohort of bladder carcinoma patients.

Biopsy↗

Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study.

CONTEXT: Despite a critical presumption of reliability, standards of interpathologist agreement have not been well defined for interpretation of cervical pathology specimens. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reproducibility of cytologic, colposcopic histologic, and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) histologic cervical specimen interpretations among multiple well-trained observers. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (ASCUS-LSIL) Triage Study (ALTS), an ongoing US multicenter clinical trial. SUBJECTS: From women enrolled in ALTS during 1996-1998, 4948 monolayer cytologic slides, 2237 colposcopic biopsies, and 535 LEEP specimens were interpreted by 7 clinical center and 4 Pathology Quality Control Group (QC) pathologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: kappa Values calculated for comparison of the original clinical center interpretation and the first QC reviewer's masked interpretation of specimens. RESULTS: For all 3 specimen types, the clinical center pathologists rendered significantly more severe interpretations than did reviewing QC pathologists. The reproducibility of monolayer cytologic interpretations was moderate (kappa = 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.48) and equivalent to the reproducibility of punch biopsy histopathologic interpretations (kappa = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.43-0.49) and LEEP histopathologic interpretations (kappa = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55). The lack of reproducibility of histopathology was most evident for less severe interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretive variability is substantial for all types of cervical specimens. Histopathology of cervical biopsies is not more reproducible than monolayer cytology, and even the interpretation of LEEP results is variable. Given the degree of irreproducibility that exists among well-trained pathologists, realistic performance expectations should guide use of their interpretations.

Biopsy↗