Boston Globe says Pathologists are Gods to be worshipped!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

yaah

Boring
Moderator Emeritus
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
28,059
Reaction score
438
Well, maybe that's taking it a bit far. I like this quote: "You have to just be born with it. . . . You can tell the best pathologists, even among students, right away. They detect things that other people don't see. It's a little bit of an art. It's difficult to explain."

From the Boston Globe 5/4/04
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/he...thology_playing_god_in_the_laboratory?pg=full

Pathology: playing God in the laboratory
By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff | May 4, 2004

Dr. Massimo Loda bore down on what resembled a technicolor map of Cape Cod, its signature upturned arm marbled with purple swirls and swishes, pink voids and hundreds of dark spots. But this was no casual exercise in map reading. He peered through his microscope, jotting down notes. There was a lot riding on his analysis.

Loda was examining a sliver of a local 54-year-old man's prostate gland. The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute pathologist was on the prowl for errant cells, a telltale sign -- to the properly trained eye -- of cancer. He could spot them a figurative mile away: Dark spots that seemed scattered, disorganized, as if in rebellion against the body.

Loda spoke with the accent of his native Italy, his salt-and-pepper hair closely cropped, his voice soft. "These have no organization," he said, directing a visitor's attention to a chaotic spattering of dark purple dots. "This makes no architectural sense. This is cancer. Definitely cancer."

No one has cancer until a pathologist says so.

Yet definitively diagnosing the disease is hardly a matter of a simple yes-no test or quick checkup. Cancers often hide deep within the body, growing in fits and starts. And beyond detecting cancer, pathologists must also determine how aggressive a particular cancer is -- whether simple surgery will help or if a patient has just months to live. They work with the detachment of medieval scholars but their decisions have life-or-death impact.

"If you're reasonably well-trained, 80 percent of the cases are simple. But then you get some difficult cases," said Loda, who often shows these hard cases around to colleagues hoping their eyes will discern something his eyes missed.

"Fortunately we don't get it wrong very often. But there are occasions where you make mistakes. You have to be humble in this job. You can't assume you know everything and you're not going to make mistakes."

A working pathologist can examine 200 to 300 tissue slides a day. Many simply look at computer screens filled with colorful blown-up images instead of microscopes. The tissue samples -- portions of some suspect gland or sections of a tumor -- resemble fantastical abstract paintings by an artist with a limited palette. All the swirls and striations and dots are in subtle gradations of pink and purple from the staining techniques. The stains are meant to highlight details, though even with this, pathologists need a sharp eye to differentiate between the subtle shades.

"The eye is extremely important," Loda said. "You can tell when a pathologist has a good eye. You need to have a visual type of memory."

"You have to just be born with it. . . . You can tell the best pathologists, even among students, right away. They detect things that other people don't see. It's a little bit of an art. It's difficult to explain."

Loda remembered, as a student, asking a prominent pathologist why he thought a particular tissue sample had cancer. "Because it looks like it," came the answer, Loda said with a laugh.

There is a certain "playing God" aspect to the pathologist's life: Their work can determine the course of a patient's treatment, or reveal how much time they likely have left. But Loda has never met any of the patients whose tissue he analyzed, saying, "It would be totally inappropriate." The patients, to an extent, become lost in the blur of slides and forms. In pathologists' jargon, examining a case is "signing out," referring to the paperwork that dominates their work.

About 12,000 board-certified pathologists practice in the United States, seeking direct physiological evidence of illness. Doctors typically diagnose patients based on symptoms. But disease resides within tissue, and patholgists find it and characterize it. They are better known for autopsies, which they often perform. Confirming diagnoses is much more central to their job.

Pathologists work to diagnose virtually every major form of disease. But their role in cancer medicine is particularly critical: Cancer is an ever-progressing affliction, requiring a deft diagnosis that will calibrate the best possible treatment.

Loda, working with a Globe reporter at his side late last month, moved on to another case, an 82-year-old man already diagnosed with cancer of the prostate and bladder. The referring oncologist wanted to know: Is the cancer spreading? Loda had tissue samples from the man's lymph nodes as well as fatty regions surrounding the already-diseased organs. If the cancer has spread, these would be the areas where it would likely show up first.

Loda specializes in genito-urinary cancers like this, running a lab at Dana-Farber that studies how these cancers behave. These days, he only "signs out," that is, looks at patient cases, 13 weeks a year. But he has been through the daily grind of the typical pathologist for decades. Loda received his medical degree in 1980 from the University of Milan, followed by pathology training at New England Deaconess Hospital, and six years as staff pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, before arriving at Dana-Farber in 1998.

The small glass slides before Loda are crisscrossed with thin pink lines, the end stage of a long process. Days earlier, the lab got the tissue samples from the patient's hospital in a Boston suburb. Dana-Farber doctors provide second opinions on cases from all over the state. The tissue was sliced into micro-thin slivers, then dehydrated, embedded with hot wax and stained before being placed on slides.

The slides are also treated with special antibodies that cling to healthy tissue, further helping to distinguish good from bad cells.

Loda examined the 82-year-old man's slides. The fatty tissue was an expanse of white and pink, with tiny squiggling riverlike structures snaking every which way. Quite clearly, there were massive ovals of dead tissue, the decrepit inner-core of tumors.

"This is a very advanced cancer," he said.

There was evidence of cancer in both the fatty tissue and the lymph nodes. Loda made back-of-the-envelope estimates of the ratio of healthy to cancerous tissue. Then he consulted a manual that translates his ratios and estimations into diagnoses. "Stage four," Loda said. "This man has stage-four cancer. He's got a pretty bad prognosis." He probably will have only months to live.

"He's 82, so you're not going to try to cure it but give him a decent quality of life," Loda said. "You don't want to poison him with drugs."

Loda filled out the forms indicating his analysis. The man's oncologist soon will have them in hand, break the news, then settle on a treatment option. In this case, Loda said, the man is likely to get medicine to ease his suffering as he moves closer to death.

It was Loda's work of several minutes one recent afternoon that set the course of the rest of the man's life.

"That's what we do."

Members don't see this ad.
 
So cool. That was like poetry.
 
Thanks for the article, Yaah. Very cool!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Wow, pathologists getting some rare love from the media...amazing. This article would be great to send to all of those skeptical family members, friends, etc that have no idea what we do everyday. The author even downplayed the autopsy as part of what pathologists do, and focused more on surgical pathology. The ironic thing is that the author (who I assume has no medical training) seems to have a better grasp on the true impact that pathologists make on medical care than 95% of the clinicians I have known. In fact, after reading this article, you would think that clinicians would be supportive of quality individuals pursuing pathology, but no, we are left with the awkward stares, the uneasy silence, and the lame jokes about "dealing with dead people" that have been well-documented in other threads.
 
Rudy said:
In fact, after reading this article, you would think that clinicians would be supportive of quality individuals pursuing pathology, but no, we are left with the awkward stares, the uneasy silence, and the lame jokes about "dealing with dead people" that have been well-documented in other threads.

No, pathologists get no love from other docs, even though they would be dead in the water without us. And who else would be the butt of their stupid jokes?

Let's face it -- they act like jackasses because deep down they hate their crappy job and wish they'd thought of path as a career.

MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Who's laughing now? :smuggrin:
 
Not so sure.

When on my surgery rotation (and I'm at a VERY surgical institution, for what it's worth), the attendings all had good things to say about path. Now that I'm on surg path, I see many of my former attendings bringing samples up themselves, and often even sitting at one of the multi-head scopes with the path attending. Certainly not all of them, but a pretty fair proportion (and some that I never would have expected). We also have a good relationship with the medical services. I still get the occassional "so, you wanted weekends off, huh?" comment from an attending, but that's infrequent (and usually in jest or said wistfully).

All in all, not bad here.

As for the article, my family gets the Globe, but I'm pretty sure they'll miss that article. :rolleyes: Time to make some phone calls! Thanks Yaah. That was a wicked pissaah aahticle.
 
Primate said:
Not so sure.

When on my surgery rotation (and I'm at a VERY surgical institution, for what it's worth), the attendings all had good things to say about path. Now that I'm on surg path, I see many of my former attendings bringing samples up themselves, and often even sitting at one of the multi-head scopes with the path attending. Certainly not all of them, but a pretty fair proportion (and some that I never would have expected). We also have a good relationship with the medical services.

Yeah, I too find that many attendings do respect what pathologists do. At the same time though, while they are saying all of these things, they are still telling me it is a waste if I don't join their field. I still think the physicians with a good working relationship with the pathologists are in the minority. I do wonder how many wish they had thought of it earlier as a potential career...

I just can't believe this article came from the boston globe who missed another chance to slam the medical profession (unless they are talking about harvard med students. Someone on the editorial board must have a kid at harvard med. Unless they are just trying to suck up to john kerry). Normally, their articles about medicine are about patient complaints or how there should not be a cap on malpractice premiums, their evidence usually being a child who was born with cerebral palsy, or a couple of children's hospital cases over the past few years where the neurosurgery team didn't respond quickly to a seizing patient. And the innumerable "drug companies are evil, corrupt monstrosities" articles, although they tried to balance it with an article this morning that basically can be summarized as, "Drug company researcher says drug companies are not all about money and are about research and saving lives, although he says this from a lavish new building and by the way, here are some statistics about how americans hate drug companies, and the only argument from drug companies is, 'that isn't fair.'"

<end anti-globe rant>
The globe has its good points. Particularly the sports page. And they cover political campaigns pretty well, and have a couple of great international writers.
 
Great article. Thanks Yaah. I will post this in our resident's room.
 
Thanks for the interesting article. I can't believe non-forensic pathology got some press!
 
Doctor B. said:
Thanks for the interesting article. I can't believe non-forensic pathology got some press!

Neither can I, still, in retrospect. Forensic path does get press around here too, but it is usually one of the "Oh dear God what were these people thinking" type of stories. Examples:

1) MEs office "misplaced" the eyes of several autopsies that they did, sending the eyes of potential shaken baby syndrome victims to unknown locations. Parents found out. Parents angry that baby buried sans eyes, and that said eyes cannot be found. :(

2) MEs office mislabels body, IDs fire victim as person A. Person A later shows up vented and scarred in MGH hospital bed, family visiting this person finally is able to figure out (patient is scarred, unresponsive, making this difficult) who the living person actually is. This, by the way, happens AFTER the funeral, where body of presumed person A was cremated. :(

3) ME assumes possession of body that is pronounced dead by EMTs. Body wakes up in cooler of morgue. Announces that her name is Sharon (I don't actually know her name, I just picture her as a Sharon). :(

4) ME blames governors office for lack of funding for all of these mistakes. Governor makes clever remark about funding not being related to properly identifying bodies. MEs office puts tail between legs and skulks off. :rolleyes:
 
Did the part in the article that mentioned "many" pathologists are looking at computer images for sign-out strike any of you as unusual? This gives the impression that digitized images are being used in place of the microscope in some path labs. I am not aware of computer images being used for sign-out/diagnosis purposes; it seems that the technology is just not there yet to make it practical or cost-effective. Plus we would be losing all of the magic and pageantry of the two-headed scope sessions in favor of two headed computer monitor sessions. Any thoughts???
 
he might be correct in his diagnosis, but his prognosis is wrong. Prostate cancer, even when it's advanced, lymph, bone involvement, will generally respond to treatment, removal of testosterone, a chemical castration. This man could live several years before his PSA starts to climb again. Prostate cancer isn't curable but it's highly treatable.
 
His prognosis might be correct, we don't know. Keep in mind this story is in a daily newspaper, and thus sensationalism is emphasized. The media love buzz-phrases like "the cancer has spread" and don't have any clue what it actually means. They talk about "cancer" and a "cure for cancer" as though it is a simple, uniform diagnosis. I hate media coverage of medicine in general because they play on people's fears. This article I thought was nice because it focused on a physician without talking about malpractice or other unfortunate things. The media treats medicine (and thus feeds malpractice lawsuits) by treating hindsight as 20/20. Thus, 5 years after an initial evaluation, when a patient presents with cancer, obviously the treating physicians in the past should have known this was going to happen and done everything to prevent it.

But yeah, I am not sure about that whole "computers for diagnostic purposes" thing. It probably refers to immunohistochemistry analysis or being part of the diagnostic algorithm. I have yet to see a pathologist who doesn't make a diagnosis on a histologic slide by using a microscope. The technology of digitized slides is getting better but it still isn't the same. It doesn't respond to the scope operator the same way, adjusting the light, subtle movements, binocular vision, etc. I quite often see things on scopes that are not as obvious on a computer screen.
 
Some institutions are currently using telepathology (virtual microscopy) to make the equivalent of a frozen preliminary diagnosis in certain situations. Last week I watched an attending on frozens look at a biopsy via telepathology. The biopsy and subsequent grossing and processing were performed at a satellite outpatient clinic. After the slide was cut and stained, a technician scanned it and sent the image to the pathologist in the main hospital. The imaging software allows the pathologist to "virtually" move the slide around and look at areas on different magnifications.

[you can experience a similar experience at the University of Iowa's website.]
http://www.path.uiowa.edu/virtualslidebox/

Admittedly, it is NOT better than having the real thing on your stage, and indeed, does not replace "physical" microscopy. The actual slide would still be sent to the main hospital for evaluation, but in this instance the clinician requested a preliminary result because he was meeting with the patient before the biopsy would have been signed out.

Though it may have been convenient for the patient to hear the results sooner, I'm not sure the technology was really worth it, especially since the pathologist may subsequently see something on the slide that was not visible on the computer screen.
 
Telepath definitely makes sense in certain situations. Take the military - either post and support a pathologist near the front lines, or use a reservist back in the states or at a mil hospital. Option #2 is alot cheaper and probably not of significantly lower quality (again, in defined situations). The number of frozens is likely low (not alot of margins needed in trauma, for instance) and wouldn't justify a full timer. Just thinking aloud.

P :eek:
 
Yaah, thanks for reminding us what studs we all are! :cool:
 
Top