Search

Our psychoanalytic understanding of human nature is that humans are self-interested. However, this view differs with those of evolution, ethology, and neuroscience, which show evidence of a natural...

This paper proposes the existence of an intrinsic, non-conflictual altruistic impulse, and presents arguments from human behavior studies, evolutionary theory, attachment theory, and psychoanalytic writings to support this thesis. Altruism has been previously regarded as a defensive phenomenon based on assumptions about the superego, competitiveness, individualism, and self-interested libido. This paper proposes that the element of primary other-orientedness makes possible a non-neurotic component of oedipal resolution, based on triadic love. Finally, the paper defines remorse as an altruistic or other-oriented repair. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background.—Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, the current state of knowledge regarding pathologic prognostic factors (factors linked to outcome) and predictive factors (factors predicting response to therapy) in colorectal carcinoma was evaluated. A multidisciplinary group of clinical (including the disciplines of medical oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology), pathologic, and statistical experts in colorectal cancer reviewed all relevant medical literature and stratified the reported prognostic factors into categories that reflected the strength of the published evidence demonstrating their prognostic value. Accordingly, the following categories of prognostic factors were defined. Category I includes factors definitively proven to be of prognostic import based on evidence from multiple statistically robust published trials and generally used in patient management. Category IIA includes factors extensively studied biologically and/or clinically and repeatedly shown to have prognostic value for outcome and/or predictive value for therapy that is of sufficient import to be included in the pathology report but that remains to be validated in statistically robust studies. Category IIB includes factors shown to be promising in multiple studies but lacking sufficient data for inclusion in category I or IIA. Category III includes factors not yet sufficiently studied to determine their prognostic value. Category IV includes factors well studied and shown to have no prognostic significance. Materials and Methods.—The medical literature was critically reviewed, and the analysis revealed specific points of variability in approach that prevented direct comparisons among published studies and compromised the quality of the collective data. Categories of variability recognized included the following: (1) methods of analysis, (2) interpretation of findings, (3) reporting of data, and (4) statistical evaluation. Additional points of variability within these categories were defined from the collective experience of the group. Reasons for the assignment of an individual prognostic factor to category I, II, III, or IV (categories defined by the level of scientific validation) were outlined with reference to the specific types of variability associated with the supportive data. For each factor and category of variability related to that factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. The recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) to increase the uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) to enhance the quality of the data needed for definitive evaluation of the prognostic value of individual prognostic factors, and (3) ultimately, to improve patient care. Results and Conclusions.—Factors that were determined to merit inclusion in category I were as follows: the local extent of tumor assessed pathologically (the pT category of the TNM staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer [AJCC/UICC]); regional lymph node metastasis (the pN category of the TNM staging system); blood or lymphatic vessel invasion; residual tumor following surgery with curative intent (the R classification of the AJCC/UICC staging system), especially as it relates to positive surgical margins; and preoperative elevation of carcinoembryonic antigen elevation (a factor established by laboratory medicine methods rather than anatomic pathology). Factors in category IIA included the following: tumor grade, radial margin status (for resection specimens with nonperitonealized surfaces), and residual tumor in the resection specimen following neoadjuvant therapy (the ypTNM category of the TNM staging system of the AJCC/UICC). Factors in category IIB included the following: histologic type, histologic features associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) (ie, host lymphoid response to tumor and medullary or mucinous histologic type), high degree of MSI (MSI-H), loss of heterozygosity at 18q (DCC gene allelic loss), and tumor border configuration (infiltrating vs pushing border). Factors grouped in category III included the following: DNA content, all other molecular markers except loss of heterozygosity 18q/DCC and MSI-H, perineural invasion, microvessel density, tumor cell–associated proteins or carbohydrates, peritumoral fibrosis, peritumoral inflammatory response, focal neuroendocrine differentiation, nuclear organizing regions, and proliferation indices. Category IV factors included tumor size and gross tumor configuration. This report records findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines defined herein.

T protocol is intended to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information as a result of the examination of surgical specimens. Use of this protocol is intended to be entirely voluntary. If equally valid protocols or similar documents are applicable, the pathologist is, of course, free to follow those authorities. Indeed, the ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of the individual circumstances presented by a specific patient or specimen. It should be understood that adherence to this protocol will not guarantee a successful result. Nevertheless, pathologists are urged to familiarize themselves with this document. Should a physician choose to deviate from the protocol owing to the circumstances of a particular patient or specimen, the physician is advised to make a contemporaneous written notation of the reason for the procedure followed. The College recognizes that this document may be used by hospitals, attorneys, managed care organizations, insurance carriers, and other payers. However, the document was developed solely as a tool to assist pathologists in the diagnostic process by providing information that reflects the state of relevant medical knowledge at the time the protocol was first published. It was not developed for credentialing, litigation, or reimbursement purposes. The College cautions that any uses of the protocol for these purposes involve considerations that are beyond the scope of this document. PROTOCOL FOR THE EXAMINATION OF SPECIMENS FROM PATIENTS WITH CARCINOMA OF THE FALLOPIAN TUBE

The Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists, as part of its program to ensure quality for anatomic pathology, continues to develop protocols for the examination of surgical specimens resected from patients with cancer. This report describes the protocol for data to be included in routine consultation reports for patients with cancer of the ovary. Previously, the Committee has published protocols for carcinomas of the colon [1], breast [2], urinary bladder [2], and prostate gland [3], and for Hodgkin's disease [2]. This protocol is not a mandate, but a guide for pathologists who would like assistance. It is not intended for pathologists who have already satisfied their quality assurance commitments with their own protocols.

The Bethesda System recognizes “Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance” (ASCUS) as a category of epithelial cell abnormality. Neither the acceptable rate of ASCUS nor the clinical follow-up are well defined. This study focused on interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance methods for evaluating the rate and outcome of ASCUS. Data was collected from questionnaire surveys from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory PAP Program and the four authors' laboratories. Most PAP laboratories (82.5%) limit the use of “atypia” terminology to abnormalities of undetermined significance. According to PAP data, the median rate of ASCUS in 1992 was 2.9%, with 10% of laboratories reporting rates greater than 9.0%. The median squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) rate was 2.2%, with a median ASCUS/SIL ratio of 1.3. The authors' laboratories (university, independent, and hospital) revealed ASCUS rates of 1.6–9.0%, while SIL rates were 2.1–9.0%. The ASCUS/SIL ratio was less variable, 0.8–2.7. Follow-up of ASCUS patients in the authors' laboratories showed 10.3–43% with SIL, but less than 6% with high grade SIL. The ratio ASCUS/SIL may serve as a useful laboratory monitor. Peer review and follow-up studies of ASCUS serve to validate laboratory criteria and consequent clinical follow-up. Communication with clinicians is vital in ensuring optimal patient care. Diagn Cytopathol 1994; 11:390–396. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Routine specimen adequacy evaluation, as advocated by The Bethesda System (TBS), can play an important role in improving the sensitivity and accuracy of cervical cytopathology screening. The effectiveness of this measure, however, has been limited by the lack of uniform criteria for adequacy. Practice parameters are now emerging, through TBS development of tentative criteria and interlaboratory comparison of adequacy practices. This study reviews 1) nationwide responses to surveys of laboratory practices in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology (CAP PAP); 2) the definitions of adequacy based on TBS; and 3) the results of implementation of these criteria in a private independent laboratory, university hospital laboratory, and private nonprofit hospital laboratory. In the initial CAP PAP survey in 1990, 35% of responding laboratories routinely reported specimen adequacy, increasing to 66% in 1991 and 85% in 1992. Interlaboratory variations in adequacy practices were observed, however, underscoring the need for consensus criteria. The experience in the authors' laboratories indicates that TBS criteria can serve as a sound guideline. Effective implementation of adequacy assessment in the individual laboratory requires careful attention to ensuring the quality of adequacy ratings, correlating clinical and prior laboratory information, issuing clear and concise reports, and giving recommendations judiciously. Through interlaboratory comparison and consistent intralaboratory emphasis on specimen adequacy, greater uniformity of adequacy assessment can be achieved, and adequacy evaluation can achieve its promise of improving the quality of cervical cytopathology.

THE INCIDENCE of and mortality from cervical cancer in the United States have decreased dramatically over the past 40 years, in part because of early diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer precursor lesions. The success of cervical cytological screening has served as a model for early diagnosis of other types of cancer. Although numerous studies have shown that lack of cytological screening is a major risk factor for the development of invasive cervical cancer, 1-3 it is important to emphasize that none of the screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic techniques used in medicine are perfect. Accordingly, a few women will develop cervical cancer despite adherence to accepted screening protocols . In addition, problems inherent with sampling, interpretation, and effective clinical follow-up preclude total prevention of cervical cancer. In recent years it has become evident that the cost and morbidity associated with the detection and treatment of low-grade cervical lesions have escalated, probably