3 rows where subject contains "Pathology and Forensic Medicine"
✎ View and edit SQL
Suggested facets: is-referenced-by-count, ISSN, container-title, author_number, created (date), title (array), subject (array), ISSN (array), orcids (array), names (array), award_numbers (array), funder_names (array), funder_dois (array)
|39||39||["Immunohistochemistry for the detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review"]||10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206276||http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206276||2019-11-12T22:15:46Z||["Pathology and Forensic Medicine", "General Medicine"]||65||1||["0021-9746", "1472-4146"]||Journal of Clinical Pathology||<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Loss of function in either breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein (BRCA1) or breast cancer type 2 susceptibility protein (BRCA2) is a major risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) development. BRCA1 or BRCA2 deficiencies are associated with short-term prognosis and might have importance for the treatment of women with the disease. However, the screening of all possible mechanisms of dysfunction is expensive, time-consuming and difficult to apply in clinical practice. On the other hand, immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a simple and reliable method to access the expression of several proteins in tumour tissues.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and methods</jats:title><jats:p>This systematic review aims to evaluate the current usage of IHC to detect BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiencies in EOC. We searched and evaluated all primary literature on the use of IHC for evaluating BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins expression in EOC. The main concepts for the search were: ovarian neoplasms, IHC, BRCA1 and BRCA2.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Forty-four studies from 925 unique titles were included. A total of 4206 tumour samples were evaluated for BRCA1 and 1041 for BRCA2 expression. Twelve BRCA1 primary antibodies were used in 41 studies, and the most common was the MS110 clone (75.6%). Seven BRCA2 primary antibodies were used in ten studies. Using the cut-off of 10%, 47.0% of EOCs are associated with loss of BRCA1 and 34.5% with the loss of BRCA2 expression.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>IHC was effective to detect loss of BRCA1 protein expression in EOC; however, data on BRCA2 expression were heterogeneous and difficult to interpret.</jats:p></jats:sec>||2||["http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1053-2046", "http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5758-5917"]||["Lorena Alves Teixeira", "Francisco Jose Candido dos Reis"]||["303210/2018-4", "130162/2017-5"]||["Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\u00edfico e Tecnol\u00f3gico"]||["10.13039/501100003593"]|
|48||48||["Cancer and the emotions in 18th-century literature"]||10.1136/medhum-2018-011639||http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2018-011639||2019-11-06T22:15:31Z||["Philosophy", "Pathology and Forensic Medicine"]||0||0||["1468-215X", "1473-4265"]||Medical Humanities||<jats:p>This essay argues that the emotional rhetoric of today’s breast cancer discourse—with its emphasis on stoicism and ‘positive thinking’ in the cancer patient, and its use of sympathetic feeling to encourage charitable giving—has its roots in the long 18th century. While cancer had long been connected with the emotions, 18th-century literature saw it associated with both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ feelings, and metaphors describing jealousy, love and other sentiments as ‘like a cancer’ were used to highlight the danger of allowing feelings—even benevolent or pleasurable feelings—to flourish unchecked. As the century wore on, breast cancer in particular became an important literary device for exploring the dangers of feeling in women, with writers of both moralising treatises and sentimental novels connecting the growth or development of cancer with the indulgence of feeling, and portraying emotional self-control as the only possible form of resistance against the disease. If, as Barbara Ehrenreich suggests, today’s discourse of ‘positive thinking’ has been mobilised to make patients with breast cancer more accepting of their diagnosis and more cooperative with punitive treatment regimens, then 18th-century fictional exhortations to stay cheerful served similarly conservative political and economic purposes, encouraging continued female submission to male prerogatives inside and outside the household.</jats:p>||1||["http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7826-495X"]||["Noelle Gallagher"]||||["University of Manchester"]||["10.13039/501100000770"]|
|94||94||["Shame-to-cynicism conversion in The Citadel and The House of God"]||10.1136/medhum-2020-011882||http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2020-011882||2020-06-16T22:00:13Z||["Philosophy", "Pathology and Forensic Medicine"]||34||0||["1468-215X", "1473-4265"]||Medical Humanities||<jats:p>This article considers the dynamics of shame and cynicism in A J Cronin’s <jats:italic>The Citadel</jats:italic> (1937) and Samuel Shem’s <jats:italic>The House of God</jats:italic> (1978). The protagonists of both novels are forced into shameful situations. Their response to these situations is increased cynicism. This results in a feedback loop: cynicism begets shame, which, in turn, causes more cynicism. Drawing on Bonnie Mann’s work on shame-to-power conversion, the article suggests that the novels stage a shame-to-cynicism conversion, which anticipates possible links between cynicism and shame in medical education. The overwhelming success of both novels in shaping the popular imaginary of healthcare professionals means that this dynamic, far from being isolated to the novels, might speak to shared concerns in the education scholarship.</jats:p>||1||["http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0817-6898"]||["Arthur Rose"]||[""]||[""]||[""]|
CREATE TABLE [article] ( [title] TEXT, [DOI] TEXT, [URL] TEXT, [created] TEXT, [subject] TEXT, [references-count] TEXT, [is-referenced-by-count] TEXT, [ISSN] TEXT, [container-title] TEXT, [abstract] TEXT, [author_number] TEXT, [orcids] TEXT, [names] TEXT, [award_numbers] TEXT, [funder_names] TEXT, [funder_dois] TEXT );