[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
August 6, 1960


Author Affiliations

1404 Pennsylvania Ave. Fort Worth 1, Texas.

JAMA. 1960;173(14):1617. doi:10.1001/jama.1960.03020320097031

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  The excellent article by Linden and co-workers entitled "Validity of Pathological Diagnosis of Breast Cancer," in The Journal, May 14, page 143, is reassuring to the practicing pathologist. The fact that 95.6% of the diagnoses of breast cancer were confirmed by three independent experts on material arising from a large number of institutions is a tribute to the uniformly high level of practice of anatomic pathology in the United States and to the American Board of Pathology.Less pleasing to the practicing pathologist is the tabulation showing an incidence in these breast cancers of 41.2% "adenocarcinoma" and 10.3% "ductal carcinoma." It is difficult to believe that eminent pathologists believe that duct carcinoma constitutes only 10% of breast cancers. In fact, the article tries to gloss over the unfortunate classification by referring to comparisons between the histological and histogenetic considerations. Although, in the words of Fred Waldorf Stewart,

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview