journal article
Open Access Collection
Raab, Stephen S.; Grzybicki, Dana M.
doi: 10.3322/caac.20068pmid: 20444999
Improving the quality of oncologic pathology diagnosis is immensely important as the overwhelming majority of the approximately 1.6 million patients who will be diagnosed with cancer in 2010 have their diagnoses established through the pathologic interpretation of a tissue sample. Millions more patients have tissue samples obtained to rule out cancer and do not have cancer. The majority of studies on the quality of oncologic pathology diagnoses have focused on patient safety and have documented a variety of causes of error that occur in the clinical and pathology laboratory testing phases of diagnostic testing. The reported frequency of a diagnostic error made by oncologic pathology depends on several factors, such as definitions and detection methods, and ranges from 1% to 15%. The large majority of diagnostic errors do not result in severe harm, although mild to moderate harm in the form of additional testing or diagnostic delays occurs in up to 50% of errors. Clinical practitioners play an essential role in error reduction through several avenues such as effective test ordering, providing accurate and pertinent clinical information, procuring high‐quality specimens, providing timely follow‐up on test results, effectively communicating on potentially discrepant diagnoses, and advocating second opinions on the pathology diagnosis in specific situations. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:139–165. © 2010 American Cancer Society, Inc.
Van Meir, Erwin G.; Hadjipanayis, Costas G.; Norden, Andrew D.; Shu, Hui‐Kuo; Wen, Patrick Y.; Olson, Jeffrey J.
doi: 10.3322/caac.20069pmid: 20445000
Malignant gliomas are the most common and deadly brain tumors. Nevertheless, survival for patients with glioblastoma, the most aggressive glioma, although individually variable, has improved from an average of 10 months to 14 months after diagnosis in the last 5 years due to improvements in the standard of care. Radiotherapy has been of key importance to the treatment of these lesions for decades, and the ability to focus the beam and tailor it to the irregular contours of brain tumors and minimize the dose to nearby critical structures with intensity‐modulated or image‐guided techniques has improved greatly. Temozolomide, an alkylating agent with simple oral administration and a favorable toxicity profile, is used in conjunction with and after radiotherapy. Newer surgical techniques, such as fluorescence‐guided resection and neuroendoscopic approaches, have become important in the management of malignant gliomas. Furthermore, new discoveries are being made in basic and translational research, which are likely to improve this situation further in the next 10 years. These include agents that block 1 or more of the disordered tumor proliferation signaling pathways, and that overcome resistance to already existing treatments. Targeted therapies such as antiangiogenic therapy with antivascular endothelial growth factor antibodies (bevacizumab) are finding their way into clinical practice. Large‐scale research efforts are ongoing to provide a comprehensive understanding of all the genetic alterations and gene expression changes underlying glioma formation. These have already refined the classification of glioblastoma into 4 distinct molecular entities that may lead to different treatment regimens. The role of cancer stem‐like cells is another area of active investigation. There is definite hope that by 2020, new cocktails of drugs will be available to target the key molecular pathways involved in gliomas and reduce their mortality and morbidity, a positive development for patients, their families, and medical professionals alike. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:166–193. © 2010 American Cancer Society, Inc.
Levine, Glenn N.; D'Amico, Anthony V.; Berger, Peter; Clark, Peter E.; Eckel, Robert H.; Keating, Nancy L.; Milani, Richard V.; Sagalowsky, Arthur I.; Smith, Matthew R.; Zakai, Neil
doi: 10.3322/caac.20061pmid: 20124400
Showing 1 to 6 of 6 Articles