Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Cytopathology: Why did it take so long to thrive?

View through CrossRef
Lionel S. Beale of London made some of the earliest contributions to Cytopathology in the 1850–1860s. Cytopathology then experienced a 60+ year hiatus during which few advances were made. In 1927, Londoner Leonard S. Dudgeon published his wet film method for rapid intraoperative diagnosis and in 1928 Greek‐American George Papanicolaou and Romanian Aurel A. Babeş independently discovered that cervical cancer can be diagnosed using vaginal smears; these were huge advancements. Yet, there was another hiatus where little progress was made which lasted until the publications of Papanicolaou and Trout in the early 1940s. After that, the field of exfoliative Cytopathology immediately flourished. None of the standard histories of Cytopathology explain these two gaps. Primary and secondary historical sources were examined to explain this pattern. The author concludes that the first hiatus is explained by the 19th Century pathology establishment's strong opposition to the doctrine of the uniqueness of cancer cells that was being pushed by only a few maverick pathologists; in fact, for many mainstream pathologists, cancer was rigidly defined by cell behavior (metastases and invasion) and not cell morphology well into the 20th Century. Biopsy‐based diagnosis faced similar opposition but advanced more rapidly as it was possible to examine increased numbers of cells in a pattern that partially maintained their normal adjacencies and architecture. The second hiatus is explained by economic pressures supporting intraoperative frozen section diagnoses and, in the instance of vaginal smears, the embryonic state of the public campaign supporting the importance of early cancer diagnosis. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2015;43:257–263. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Title: Cytopathology: Why did it take so long to thrive?
Description:
Lionel S.
Beale of London made some of the earliest contributions to Cytopathology in the 1850–1860s.
Cytopathology then experienced a 60+ year hiatus during which few advances were made.
In 1927, Londoner Leonard S.
Dudgeon published his wet film method for rapid intraoperative diagnosis and in 1928 Greek‐American George Papanicolaou and Romanian Aurel A.
Babeş independently discovered that cervical cancer can be diagnosed using vaginal smears; these were huge advancements.
Yet, there was another hiatus where little progress was made which lasted until the publications of Papanicolaou and Trout in the early 1940s.
After that, the field of exfoliative Cytopathology immediately flourished.
None of the standard histories of Cytopathology explain these two gaps.
Primary and secondary historical sources were examined to explain this pattern.
The author concludes that the first hiatus is explained by the 19th Century pathology establishment's strong opposition to the doctrine of the uniqueness of cancer cells that was being pushed by only a few maverick pathologists; in fact, for many mainstream pathologists, cancer was rigidly defined by cell behavior (metastases and invasion) and not cell morphology well into the 20th Century.
Biopsy‐based diagnosis faced similar opposition but advanced more rapidly as it was possible to examine increased numbers of cells in a pattern that partially maintained their normal adjacencies and architecture.
The second hiatus is explained by economic pressures supporting intraoperative frozen section diagnoses and, in the instance of vaginal smears, the embryonic state of the public campaign supporting the importance of early cancer diagnosis.
Diagn.
Cytopathol.
2015;43:257–263.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Related Results

Cancer Cytopathology: 20 years of advancing the field of pancreaticobiliary cytopathology
Cancer Cytopathology: 20 years of advancing the field of pancreaticobiliary cytopathology
The past 20 years in cytopathology have demonstrated tremendous growth and evolution in the cytopathology of organs located below the diaphragm, with much of the progress centering...
Pitfalls in Urinary Tract Cytopathology
Pitfalls in Urinary Tract Cytopathology
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Urine cytopathology is a cost-effective method to diagnose and follow patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma (UC). However,...
Immunotherapy and lung cytopathology: Overview and possibilities
Immunotherapy and lung cytopathology: Overview and possibilities
AbstractImmunotherapy has become a promising cancer treatment in the past decade, and IHC is the most commonly used testing method for PDL‐1/PD1 evaluation. In general, PD‐L1 assay...
The use of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology in a Chinese population: An analysis of 13 351 specimens
The use of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology in a Chinese population: An analysis of 13 351 specimens
AbstractAimsThe Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) has been widely adopted since its introduction. In this study, we aimed to report our experience using ...
Biospecimen repositories and cytopathology
Biospecimen repositories and cytopathology
Biospecimen repositories are important for the advancement of biomedical research. Literature on the potential for biobanking of fine‐needle aspiration, gynecologic, and nongynecol...
Our 2018 Cancer Cytopathology Young Investigator
Our 2018 Cancer Cytopathology Young Investigator
AbstractBackgroundThe Paris System for Urine Cytopathology (the Paris System) has succeeded in making the analysis of liquid‐based urine preparations more reproducible. Any algorit...
Notes on the Vanuatu Megapode Megapodius layardi on Ambrym, Vanuatu
Notes on the Vanuatu Megapode Megapodius layardi on Ambrym, Vanuatu
SummaryThe Vanuatu Megapode Megapodius layardi is endemic to Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides). On the volcanic island of Ambrym it exhibited three different incubation strategies. I...

Back to Top