I was Dr. Epstein's first external fellow in 1995 and it was a fantastic learning experience. While I am much concerned about the allegations and would get a third opinion if his second opinion was it support of his wife's diagnosis, I don't know why a second opinion on any biopsy initially read by any pathologist other than his wife would need to be reviewed. Having a bias (consciously or unconsciously) supporting one's wife is wrong but understandable. I don't see how this bias would extend to other persons, however.
Thanks for sharing, Dr. Guest. It would be nice if Hopkins were more transparent. Many patients may be concerned. Maybe Hopkins can offer some reassurance?
I think everyone should consider that none of the doctor's involved have been hit with a malpractice case. No patients had unnecessary procedures performed. Therefore, I would take all of this with a grain of salt. I have some personal knowledge of this case and it very much involves one disgruntled colleague.
This is discouraging news for many thousands of prostate ca patients who relied on this arcane science and pathology specialist for evaluation. Do you know: has AI moved into the field of pathology diagnosis for prostate ca biopsies?
Thanks Howard. I saw your letter to JH and the medical director and will be interested in knowing if they reply. This may become another political football for them. Let’s hope that can stay out of it.
OK Howard, you need to put this into something I understand. I had a biopsy re-read by Dr Epstein’s lab and it came back as Grade 1 ( Gleason 6). This was confirmed by the pathology lab at Stanford. Do I need to worry about it being under rated?
From your write-up, I don’t understand what his wife’s were having an effect on.
Horrible bosses
I worked in surgical Pathology at Hopkins. Ah the stories!!
Thanks, Dr. O.
I was Dr. Epstein's first external fellow in 1995 and it was a fantastic learning experience. While I am much concerned about the allegations and would get a third opinion if his second opinion was it support of his wife's diagnosis, I don't know why a second opinion on any biopsy initially read by any pathologist other than his wife would need to be reviewed. Having a bias (consciously or unconsciously) supporting one's wife is wrong but understandable. I don't see how this bias would extend to other persons, however.
Jonathan Oppenheimer
The Fork Inn Prostate Ranch
Franklin TN
2nd looks happen all the time
Thanks for sharing, Dr. Guest. It would be nice if Hopkins were more transparent. Many patients may be concerned. Maybe Hopkins can offer some reassurance?
I think everyone should consider that none of the doctor's involved have been hit with a malpractice case. No patients had unnecessary procedures performed. Therefore, I would take all of this with a grain of salt. I have some personal knowledge of this case and it very much involves one disgruntled colleague.
How about removal of the bladder?
This is discouraging news for many thousands of prostate ca patients who relied on this arcane science and pathology specialist for evaluation. Do you know: has AI moved into the field of pathology diagnosis for prostate ca biopsies?
Munro,
To the best of our knowledge, you should be fine.
Howard
Thanks Howard. I saw your letter to JH and the medical director and will be interested in knowing if they reply. This may become another political football for them. Let’s hope that can stay out of it.
OK Howard, you need to put this into something I understand. I had a biopsy re-read by Dr Epstein’s lab and it came back as Grade 1 ( Gleason 6). This was confirmed by the pathology lab at Stanford. Do I need to worry about it being under rated?
From your write-up, I don’t understand what his wife’s were having an effect on.