To the Editor.—
Dr Mays' timely COMMENTARY on the standard nomenclature for primary hepatic tumors contained several important inaccuracies. He suggested that our recent article1 is, in part, responsible for the confusion surrounding this subject. In fact, our article included a review of the clinical and histological features of the reported cases of benign hepatic tumors in adults and discussed the histological classification of these tumors. We did not limit our review to those women known to be taking oral contraceptives, but summarized the data reported up to March 1975 (the date of submission) with regard to the type of contraceptive taken and types of tumors observed.Dr Mays also greatly misrepresented Edmondson's excellent and workable classification system.2 The gross and microscopic features useful for differentiating benign hepatic adenomas, focal nodular hyperplasia, and mesenchymal hamartomas have been summarized.1 Unfortunately, Edmondson's classification system has not always been used,
Graham DY. Standard Nomenclature for Primary Hepatic Tumors. JAMA. 1977;237(15):1560. doi:10.1001/jama.1977.03270420027009
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: