This is a freak case to be honest. Osteosarcoma in cervical spine that did not burst out of the vertebra for months (assuming this because otherwise it would look more malignant in the imaging, ringing alarm bells. I don't know if closing the patient at that point would make any difference. Sad case for both parties.
The only slides mentioned are frozen sections…those preparations have poor cell morphology and are suboptimal for a definitive diagnosis. There must have been other slides made, as well as additional stains and molecular testing. The pathology section seems sparse… There’s no way the final diagnosis was made from a frozen section!!
I've gotten this same feedback from a bunch of pathologists! I found the pathology expert opinions and am going to get them published in a week or two! Didn't realize how important they were...
Awesome, I look forward to reading it! I really enjoy these cases.
Usually intra-operative frozen sections are done to see if margins are clear or to get a preliminary read on a tissue. Its usefulness is how fast it can be read, but it’s done at the expense of tissue morphology/resolution. It’s like the difference between a Polaroid and a high-res print from a DSLR camera.
Unfortunately it turned out to be a bit of a dud... it was just a copy/paste of the same pathology opinion already published above. There was only one small addition stating that they "failed to make the correct pathologic diagnosis of osteosarcoma even on permanent sections". Confirms your point that they didn't make a final diagnosis on frozen sections but not really any additional info about other stains/molecular testing. Sorry!
This is a freak case to be honest. Osteosarcoma in cervical spine that did not burst out of the vertebra for months (assuming this because otherwise it would look more malignant in the imaging, ringing alarm bells. I don't know if closing the patient at that point would make any difference. Sad case for both parties.
The only slides mentioned are frozen sections…those preparations have poor cell morphology and are suboptimal for a definitive diagnosis. There must have been other slides made, as well as additional stains and molecular testing. The pathology section seems sparse… There’s no way the final diagnosis was made from a frozen section!!
I've gotten this same feedback from a bunch of pathologists! I found the pathology expert opinions and am going to get them published in a week or two! Didn't realize how important they were...
Awesome, I look forward to reading it! I really enjoy these cases.
Usually intra-operative frozen sections are done to see if margins are clear or to get a preliminary read on a tissue. Its usefulness is how fast it can be read, but it’s done at the expense of tissue morphology/resolution. It’s like the difference between a Polaroid and a high-res print from a DSLR camera.
Hi! Was that other pathology information published? Still curious what their other slides/testing entailed!
Unfortunately it turned out to be a bit of a dud... it was just a copy/paste of the same pathology opinion already published above. There was only one small addition stating that they "failed to make the correct pathologic diagnosis of osteosarcoma even on permanent sections". Confirms your point that they didn't make a final diagnosis on frozen sections but not really any additional info about other stains/molecular testing. Sorry!
No worries! Thanks for the response! I was just checking because I thought maybe I had missed it getting posted