- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
................
Last edited:
While I have some suspicions of the long term practicality of in-vivo microscopy, I don't think it's something to entirely ignore either. Be aware, heck if you get a chance be involved in the comparative studies, but I wouldn't go crawling into a grave just yet.
the clinicians would have to do a whole lot of extra training to be able to do interpret in vivo microscopy on their own (i bet it would be easier for a pathologist to learn to interpret this as it is still microscopy)... i doubt that in addition to all their training, they could do also this and eschew pathologists from diagnoses on any cases completely.. but maybe it will help with patient care.
i've been asked by a fellow from a team of clinicians at my institution to help on a project studying this. i plan to say yes and not thwart technology for the sake of keeping them away from my turf..
maybe pathologists will have a role in in-vivo microscopy.. that would be worth exploring...
Is it plausible that the clinician doesn't take any biopsies at all? I thought the in vivo microscopy was to screen which lesions to biopsy. It doesn't seem likely that the clinician would want to base the patients final diagnosis on their own ability to interpret microscopic images.
Wouldn't it be in the clinicians interest to have pathology read the images? Probably the majority of the reimbursement would be for the procedure, and the investment of time to learn how to interpret the images might not be worth it for them.
Invivo microscopy is bull****.