Rabbit monoclonal E-cadherin antibody: A cost-effective alternative to mouse monoclonal antibody in distinguishing ductal carcinoma in situ from lobular carcinoma in situ.

Rabbit monoclonal antibody (RabMAb) demonstrates higher sensitivity without sacrificing specificity than mouse monoclonal antibody (MMAb). MMAb against E-cadherin stain is heavily utilized in distinguishing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). We aimed to compare the E-cadherin stain using RabMAb vs MMAb in distinguishing DCIS from LCIS. One hundred and seventeen in situ breast carcinomas (55 DCIS, 58 LCIS, and 4 DCIS and LCIS) were studied. Sections from a representative block of each were stained with RabMAb [EP700Y] and MMAb [36B5]. Scanned images of stained slides were compared in tandem. All DCIS cases (59/59) showed comparable staining by RabMAb and MMAb. Comparable staining was also observed in all but one case of LCIS (61/62; 98%). One case of pleomorphic LCIS showed mostly complete, weak to moderately intense membranous staining with RabMAb and fragmented, weak membranous staining with MMAb. Consistently better staining quality was observed in slides stained by RabMAb vs MMAb. RabMAb and MMAb against E-cadherin were diagnostically equivalent with the exception of one case where RabMAb may have led to diagnostic misinterpretation. However, the not insignificant cost savings and easier interpretation using RabMAb may justify the risk of misinterpretation of increased staining in rare cases, largely avertable with proper training.

Clinical fellowship training in pathology informatics: A program description.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, our healthcare system established a clinical fellowship program in pathology informatics. In 2011, the program benchmarked its structure and operations against a 2009 white paper "Program requirements for fellowship education in the subspecialty of clinical informatics", endorsed by the Board of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) that described a proposal for a general clinical informatics fellowship program. METHODS: A group of program faculty members and fellows compared each of the proposed requirements in the white paper with the fellowship program's written charter and operations. The majority of white paper proposals aligned closely with the rules and activities in our program and comparison was straightforward. In some proposals, however, differences in terminology, approach, and philosophy made comparison less direct, and in those cases, the thinking of the group was recorded. After the initial evaluation, the remainder of the faculty reviewed the results and any disagreements were resolved. RESULTS: The most important finding of the study was how closely the white paper proposals for a general clinical informatics fellowship program aligned with the reality of our existing pathology informatics fellowship. The program charter and operations of the program were judged to be concordant with the great majority of specific white paper proposals. However, there were some areas of discrepancy and the reasons for the discrepancies are discussed in the manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: After the comparison, we conclude that the existing pathology informatics fellowship could easily meet all substantive proposals put forth in the 2009 clinical informatics program requirements white paper. There was also agreement on a number of philosophical issues, such as the advantages of multiple fellows, the need for core knowledge and skill sets, and the need to maintain clinical skills during informatics training. However, there were other issues, such as a requirement for a 2-year fellowship and for informatics fellowships to be done after primary board certification, that pathology should consider carefully as it moves toward a subspecialty status and board certification.

Pathology informatics fellowship retreats: The use of interactive scenarios and case studies as pathology informatics teaching tools.

BACKGROUND: Last year, our pathology informatics fellowship added informatics-based interactive case studies to its existing educational platform of operational and research rotations, clinical conferences, a common core curriculum with an accompanying didactic course, and national meetings. METHODS: The structure of the informatics case studies was based on the traditional business school case study format. Three different formats were used, varying in length from short, 15-minute scenarios to more formal multiple hour-long case studies. Case studies were presented over the course of three retreats (Fall 2011, Winter 2012, and Spring 2012) and involved both local and visiting faculty and fellows. RESULTS: Both faculty and fellows found the case studies and the retreats educational, valuable, and enjoyable. From this positive feedback, we plan to incorporate the retreats in future academic years as an educational component of our fellowship program. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive case studies appear to be valuable in teaching several aspects of pathology informatics that are difficult to teach in more traditional venues (rotations and didactic class sessions). Case studies have become an important component of our fellowship's educational platform.