UNIVERSI
TÄ
TS-
BIBLIOTHEK
P
ADERBORN
Anmelden
Menü
Menü
Start
Hilfe
Blog
Weitere Dienste
Neuerwerbungslisten
Fachsystematik Bücher
Erwerbungsvorschlag
Bestellung aus dem Magazin
Fernleihe
Einstellungen
Sprache
Deutsch
Deutsch
Englisch
Farbschema
Hell
Dunkel
Automatisch
Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist
gegebenenfalls
nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich.
mehr Informationen...
Universitätsbibliothek
Katalog
Suche
Details
Zur Ergebnisliste
Ergebnis 19 von 195
Datensatz exportieren als...
BibTeX
Cytopathology: Why did it take so long to thrive?
Diagnostic cytopathology, 2015-03, Vol.43 (3), p.257-263
Wright Jr, James R.
Michael, Claire W.
2015
Details
Autor(en) / Beteiligte
Wright Jr, James R.
Michael, Claire W.
Titel
Cytopathology: Why did it take so long to thrive?
Ist Teil von
Diagnostic cytopathology, 2015-03, Vol.43 (3), p.257-263
Ort / Verlag
United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Erscheinungsjahr
2015
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
Beschreibungen/Notizen
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.
Sprache
Englisch
Identifikatoren
ISSN: 8755-1039
eISSN: 1097-0339
DOI: 10.1002/dc.23246
Titel-ID: cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1655521987
Format
–
Schlagworte
cancer biology
,
cancer diagnosis
,
clinical pathology
,
cytopathology
,
histopathology
,
History, 19th Century
,
History, 20th Century
,
History, 21st Century
,
Humans
,
medical history
,
Neoplasms - pathology
,
Pathology - history
,
Pathology - methods
Weiterführende Literatur
Empfehlungen zum selben Thema automatisch vorgeschlagen von
bX