Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorD'Orsi, Carl J.
dc.contributor.authorReale, Frank R.
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Michael A.
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Vanessa J.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:35.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:36:18Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:36:18Z
dc.date.issued1992-03-01
dc.date.submitted2009-03-31
dc.identifier.citation<p>Radiology. 1992 Mar;182(3):801-3.</p>
dc.identifier.issn0033-8419 (Print)
dc.identifier.doi10.1148/radiology.182.3.1535898
dc.identifier.pmid1535898
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/38755
dc.description.abstractThis study was initiated to determine whether the apparent calcium loss during histologic breast specimen processing could be explained by the presence of birefringent, transparent calcium oxalate crystals (type I). In previous investigations, the authors had noted a possible loss of 26.2% of calcium during the processing and sectioning of breast specimens. Two hundred thirteen histologic slides prepared from blocks demonstrating calcium radiographically but not histologically were reviewed with polarized light. An additional 506 slides from 19 malignancies appearing as microcalcifications were also reviewed with polarized light. Only one slide from each group (0.2% and 0.5% from the malignant and benign groups, respectively) demonstrated birefringent calcium oxalate (type I). Thus, the presence of calcium oxalate does not sufficiently explain the non-visualization of calcium, which is due instead to processing of breast specimens.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1535898&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.182.3.1535898
dc.subjectBiopsy
dc.subjectBreast
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasms
dc.subjectCalcinosis
dc.subjectCalcium Oxalate
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subject*Specimen Handling
dc.subjectLife Sciences
dc.subjectMedicine and Health Sciences
dc.titleIs calcium oxalate an adequate explanation for nonvisualization of breast specimen calcifications
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleRadiology
dc.source.volume182
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs/1603
dc.identifier.contextkey805424
html.description.abstract<p>This study was initiated to determine whether the apparent calcium loss during histologic breast specimen processing could be explained by the presence of birefringent, transparent calcium oxalate crystals (type I). In previous investigations, the authors had noted a possible loss of 26.2% of calcium during the processing and sectioning of breast specimens. Two hundred thirteen histologic slides prepared from blocks demonstrating calcium radiographically but not histologically were reviewed with polarized light. An additional 506 slides from 19 malignancies appearing as microcalcifications were also reviewed with polarized light. Only one slide from each group (0.2% and 0.5% from the malignant and benign groups, respectively) demonstrated birefringent calcium oxalate (type I). Thus, the presence of calcium oxalate does not sufficiently explain the non-visualization of calcium, which is due instead to processing of breast specimens.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathoapubs/1603
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology
dc.source.pages801-3


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record