By Howard Wolinsky In May, TheActiveSurveillor broke the news that go-to prostate pathology guru Jonathan Epstein, of John Hopkins, was on administrative leave, but the reasons were not revealed—though the prostate gossip mill was grinding out rumors.
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.
The Fork Inn Prostate Ranch
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?
To the best of our knowledge, you should be fine.
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.