I was in the second year of my graduate course studying pathology. It was then that I learned that all tumors that grew from any surface either had a stalk or pedicle, or did not have one. Those with pedicles were called pedunculated and those without were called sessile. A little later I studied Gynecology. I learned that leiomyomas arising from the outer or inner surface of the uterus could be pedunculated or sessile. A pedunculated mass arising from a mucosal surface was also known as a polyp. This information has an important bearing on the management of the tumor. A benign pedunculated tumor can be removed easily by dividing its pedicle. A sessile tumor cannot be removed so easily, and has to be dissected out of its bed. All this information is quite basic, and is required to be known by the graduate and definitely the postgraduate students.
We were in a clinicopathologic meeting, attended by our doctors as well as pathologists. One case was being discussed, who had a polyp of the uterus.
"Polyps can be pedunculated or sessile" a Professor from the other department said.
There was a deadly silence among both gynecologists and pathologists, at least those who were paying attention or not dozing. No one said anything for quite some time. Then the resident doctor who was presenting the case started where he had been interrupted. The meeting moved on.
"Has she/he* gone bonkers?" someone said after the meeting. "How can she/he make such a statement?"
"She/he is known to make such statements. That is how God has made her/him" a knowledgeable person said.
"But what about the students taught by her/him? They will remember that and get in trouble in exams" a third person said.
"They don't pay attention to the teachers. They read books for their education" a fourth person said.
"I hope she/he has not written a book and if she/he hasn't, is not planning to write one" a fifth person said.
"I think she/he was not concentrating, and said polyp in place of a leiomyoma" I said. That sounded correct. It also fitted in the behavior of the person concerned.
(* She/he is used to protect the identity of the person concerned).
We were in a clinicopathologic meeting, attended by our doctors as well as pathologists. One case was being discussed, who had a polyp of the uterus.
"Polyps can be pedunculated or sessile" a Professor from the other department said.
There was a deadly silence among both gynecologists and pathologists, at least those who were paying attention or not dozing. No one said anything for quite some time. Then the resident doctor who was presenting the case started where he had been interrupted. The meeting moved on.
"Has she/he* gone bonkers?" someone said after the meeting. "How can she/he make such a statement?"
"She/he is known to make such statements. That is how God has made her/him" a knowledgeable person said.
"But what about the students taught by her/him? They will remember that and get in trouble in exams" a third person said.
"They don't pay attention to the teachers. They read books for their education" a fourth person said.
"I hope she/he has not written a book and if she/he hasn't, is not planning to write one" a fifth person said.
"I think she/he was not concentrating, and said polyp in place of a leiomyoma" I said. That sounded correct. It also fitted in the behavior of the person concerned.
(* She/he is used to protect the identity of the person concerned).
