English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent issue of the Journal, Goldstein and Amos (/) reported a segregation analysis of women with different types of breast cancer. They stated that the histologic diagnoses of the breast cancers were not reviewed, since it was believed that "the level of accuracy obtained by using local pathologists (reported to be at least 80%) was sufficient for the present analysis." Unfortunately, the reference given to support this approach is to a paper that states that only the diagnosis of breast cancer itself and the diagnosis of "ductal type" are of such credibility (2). There is no mention of the other three subcategories used by Goldstein and Amos. In fact, one of their categories, "adenocarcinoma," is a term applied to most breast carcinomas and has never been regarded as a subcategory. Yes, the diagnostic separation of "cancer yes vs cancer no" can be acknowledged as 90% credible, but the same cannot be said about breast cancer types or subtypes, as is well known to those of us who deal with this body of information. It is a shame that histopathologic data should be thought of little use from papers such as this in which histopathology is used badly.

Protection of Central Nervous System Metastases From Systemic Chemotherapy by Adrenal Corticosteroids