Does the throughness of histological sectioning of recovered nodes make any difference?

When I began practicing in 1975, little or no effort was made to recover small nodes (maybe less than 0.5cm). And large nodes were typically sampled (maybe a representative block for a 1-2cm node). I remember numerous "poster presentations" at national meetings assuring us that small mets weren't of any definite prognostic consequence.

But, in intervening years, oncologic treatment decisions have become much more complex. But, as of May 2001, all outcomes data was based on "ordinary processing". So, in about June 2002, reports began to come out which seemed to explain why 25% of node negative breast cancers behaved like node positive: stepcut sectioning through archived node blocks (from many years prior) converted about 25% of node negative cases to node positive...the mets were in the parafin blocks, undetected.

Does the number of nodes...the thoroughness of node dissection make any difference? Feb. 2002 issue of American Journal of Surgical Pathology reports a massive study ... more.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.