This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (27)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alvan R. Feinstein, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1985;145(10):1789-1791.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

For almost a century, clinicians reporting the treatment of patients with cancer have been analyzing the cancers, but not the patients. The formal systems we have developed to classify patients, estimate prognosis, choose treatment, and evaluate outcomes depend almost exclusively on the morphology of the cancer. The morphology is described with "staging systems" or other taxonomies that identify a cancer's primary site, its gross anatomic spread beyond the primary location, and such microscopic attributes as histologic type, mitotic grade, and vascular relationships.

Statistical appraisals of prognosis and therapy have been greatly improved by these morphologic classifications. They have helped put an end to many past acts of statistical malpractice, such as the comparison of results for treatment A, given to patients with localized cancer, with the results of treatment B, given to patients with disseminated cancer. By insisting that treatments be contrasted only for patients having similar morphologic stages of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Yale University School of Medicine I 456 SHM PO Box 333 New Haven, CT 06510-8025

Footnotes
Because the list of references would become too long if all pertinent articles were cited, I have restricted the citations to the personal publications mentioned in the text.—A.R.F.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?