@article{schulman_bertram_meuten_moore_avallone_bartel_bolfa_camus_chambers_dark_et al._2023, title={Overview of the Veterinary Cancer Guidelines and Protocols group's "Developing, reporting and validating histologic tumor grading systems"}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/03009858231209409}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Schulman, F. Yvonne and Bertram, Christof A. and Meuten, Donald J. and Moore, Frances M. and Avallone, Giancarlo and Bartel, Alexander and Bolfa, Pompei and Camus, Melinda and Chambers, James K. and Dark, Michael J. and et al.}, year={2023}, month={Nov} }
 @article{schulman_roccabianca_avallone_bertram_chalkley_chambers_donovan_foster_meuten_porcellato_et al._2022, title={Reporting guidelines for manuscripts on tumor prognosis}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/03009858221082207}, abstractNote={While veterinary medicine has been around for millennia, veterinary oncology is a relatively recent discipline that started to emerge in the 1960s.1 It has blossomed over the decades since, leading to the development of subspecialties, including medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. These active areas of interest in veterinary medicine have resulted in productive research and a flood of published papers on prognostic markers that guide current practices in clinical oncology and surgical pathology. Unfortunately, without standardized guidelines for reporting of these studies, many of these papers are missing the necessary information to allow (1) replication of the study methods and confirmation of the results by others, (2) comparison with other studies, (3) proper evaluation of the accuracy of the conclusions, or (4) assessment of the applicability of the studied marker(s) to prognosis in routine diagnostic settings. Potential problems with studies on prognostic markers include study population bias, poor study design, nonreproducible or incorrect assay methods, and incorrect statistical analysis. For example, studies in veterinary oncology are often based on cases seen at referral institutions or universities, which may lead to a bias toward more severe disease and owners willing to undertake advanced and prolonged treatments, resulting in skewed data that might not be applicable to primary practice cases. Other common issues include failure to measure clinically important end points, such as clinical outcome, and problems arising from analysis of cases with different treatment protocols. Differences in assay methods, such as different antibody clones from different manufacturers, which are not always specifically reported, can affect the assay results. Incorrect statistical analysis, which can be due to too few cases, improper censoring, or applying the wrong statistical test, can affect conclusions about the significance of the study findings. Poor study reporting has consequences. Poorly conducted studies and incorrectly analyzed data can lead to erroneous conclusions, which in turn can lead to disseminated misinformation, result in incorrect application to routine diagnostics with direct impact on patient care, and instigate additional studies that lack a proper foundation. To address these types of issues in human medicine, development of guidelines for reporting of prognostic markers was recommended at the US National Cancer Institute and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCIEORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in July 2000. This led to the formation of the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics and the publication of REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) in 2005,2 which has been widely adopted in human medicine. The REMARK guidelines are the basis for a new checklist of reporting guidelines for manuscripts on tumor prognosis in Veterinary Pathology: https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/ cmscontent/VET/VetPathChecklist_ReportingGuidelines_ TumorPrognosisManuscripts.docx. This checklist is designed 1082207 VETXXX10.1177/03009858221082207Veterinary PathologySchulman et al research-article2022}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Schulman, F. Yvonne and Roccabianca, Paola and Avallone, Giancarlo and Bertram, Christof A. and Chalkley, Mark and Chambers, James K. and Donovan, Taryn A. and Foster, Robert A. and Meuten, Donald and Porcellato, Ilaria and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Feb} }
 @article{bertram_aubreville_donovan_bartel_wilm_marzahl_assenmacher_becker_bennett_corner_et al._2021, title={Computer-assisted mitotic count using a deep learning-based algorithm improves interobserver reproducibility and accuracy}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/03009858211067478}, abstractNote={ The mitotic count (MC) is an important histological parameter for prognostication of malignant neoplasms. However, it has inter- and intraobserver discrepancies due to difficulties in selecting the region of interest (MC-ROI) and in identifying or classifying mitotic figures (MFs). Recent progress in the field of artificial intelligence has allowed the development of high-performance algorithms that may improve standardization of the MC. As algorithmic predictions are not flawless, computer-assisted review by pathologists may ensure reliability. In the present study, we compared partial (MC-ROI preselection) and full (additional visualization of MF candidates and display of algorithmic confidence values) computer-assisted MC analysis to the routine (unaided) MC analysis by 23 pathologists for whole-slide images of 50 canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCTs). Algorithmic predictions aimed to assist pathologists in detecting mitotic hotspot locations, reducing omission of MFs, and improving classification against imposters. The interobserver consistency for the MC significantly increased with computer assistance (interobserver correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.92) compared to the unaided approach (ICC = 0.70). Classification into prognostic stratifications had a higher accuracy with computer assistance. The algorithmically preselected hotspot MC-ROIs had a consistently higher MCs than the manually selected MC-ROIs. Compared to a ground truth (developed with immunohistochemistry for phosphohistone H3), pathologist performance in detecting individual MF was augmented when using computer assistance (F1-score of 0.68 increased to 0.79) with a reduction in false negatives by 38%. The results of this study demonstrate that computer assistance may lead to more reproducible and accurate MCs in ccMCTs. }, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Bertram, Christof A. and Aubreville, Marc and Donovan, Taryn A. and Bartel, Alexander and Wilm, Frauke and Marzahl, Christian and Assenmacher, Charles-Antoine and Becker, Kathrin and Bennett, Mark and Corner, Sarah and et al.}, year={2021}, month={Dec} }
 @article{meuten_moore_donovan_bertram_klopfleisch_foster_smedley_dark_milovancev_stromberg_et al._2021, title={International Guidelines for Veterinary Tumor Pathology: A Call to Action}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/03009858211013712}, abstractNote={Standardization of tumor assessment lays the foundation for validation of grading systems, permits reproducibility of oncologic studies among investigators, and increases confidence in the significance of study results. Currently, there is minimal methodological standardization for assessing tumors in veterinary medicine, with few attempts to validate published protocols and grading schemes. The current article attempts to address these shortcomings by providing standard guidelines for tumor assessment parameters and protocols for evaluating specific tumor types. More detailed information is available in the Supplemental Files, the intention of which is 2-fold: publication as part of this commentary, but more importantly, these will be available as “living documents” on a website ( www.vetcancerprotocols.org ), which will be updated as new information is presented in the peer-reviewed literature. Our hope is that veterinary pathologists will agree that this initiative is needed, and will contribute to and utilize this information for routine diagnostic work and oncologic studies. Journal editors and reviewers can utilize checklists to ensure publications include sufficient detail and standardized methods of tumor assessment. To maintain the relevance of the guidelines and protocols, it is critical that the information is periodically updated and revised as new studies are published and validated with the intent of providing a repository of this information. Our hope is that this initiative (a continuation of efforts published in this journal in 2011) will facilitate collaboration and reproducibility between pathologists and institutions, increase case numbers, and strengthen clinical research findings, thus ensuring continued progress in veterinary oncologic pathology and improving patient care.}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Meuten, Donald J. and Moore, Frances M. and Donovan, Taryn A. and Bertram, Christof A. and Klopfleisch, Robert and Foster, Robert A. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Dark, Michael J. and Milovancev, Milan and Stromberg, Paul and et al.}, year={2021}, month={Jul} }
 @article{donovan_moore_bertram_luong_bolfa_klopfleisch_tvedten_salas_whitley_aubreville_et al._2021, title={Mitotic Figures-Normal, Atypical, and Imposters: A Guide to Identification}, volume={58}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/0300985820980049}, abstractNote={Counting mitotic figures (MF) in hematoxylin and eosin–stained histologic sections is an integral part of the diagnostic pathologist’s tumor evaluation. The mitotic count (MC) is used alone or as part of a grading scheme for assessment of prognosis and clinical decisions. Determining MCs is subjective, somewhat laborious, and has interobserver variation. Proposals for standardizing this parameter in the veterinary field are limited to terminology (use of the term MC) and area (MC is counted in an area measuring 2.37 mm2). Digital imaging techniques are now commonplace and widely used among veterinary pathologists, and field of view area can be easily calculated with digital imaging software. In addition to standardizing the methods of counting MF, the morphologic characteristics of MF and distinguishing atypical mitotic figures (AMF) versus mitotic-like figures (MLF) need to be defined. This article provides morphologic criteria for MF identification and for distinguishing normal phases of MF from AMF and MLF. Pertinent features of digital microscopy and application of computational pathology (CPATH) methods are discussed. Correct identification of MF will improve MC consistency, reproducibility, and accuracy obtained from manual (glass slide or whole-slide imaging) and CPATH approaches.}, number={2}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Donovan, Taryn A. and Moore, Frances M. and Bertram, Christof A. and Luong, Richard and Bolfa, Pompei and Klopfleisch, Robert and Tvedten, Harold and Salas, Elisa N. and Whitley, Derick B. and Aubreville, Marc and et al.}, year={2021}, month={Mar}, pages={243–257} }
 @article{meuten_munday_hauck_2018, title={Time to Standardize? Time to Validate?}, volume={55}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/0300985817753869}, number={2}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Meuten, Don and Munday, John S. and Hauck, Marlene}, year={2018}, month={Mar}, pages={195–199} }
 @article{meuten_moore_george_2016, title={Mitotic Count and the Field of View Area: Time to Standardize}, volume={53}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/0300985815593349}, number={1}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Moore, F. M. and George, J. W.}, year={2016}, month={Jan}, pages={7–9} }
 @article{freire_meuten_lascelles_2014, title={Pathology of Articular Cartilage and Synovial Membrane From Elbow Joints With and Without Degenerative Joint Disease in Domestic Cats}, volume={51}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, url={https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300985813516648}, DOI={10.1177/0300985813516648}, abstractNote={ The elbow joint is one of the feline appendicular joints most commonly and severely affected by degenerative joint disease. The macroscopic and histopathological lesions of the elbow joints of 30 adult cats were evaluated immediately after euthanasia. Macroscopic evidence of degenerative joint disease was found in 22 of 30 cats (39 elbow joints) (73.33% cats; 65% elbow joints), and macroscopic cartilage erosion ranged from mild fibrillation to complete ulceration of the hyaline cartilage with exposure of the subchondral bone. Distribution of the lesions in the cartilage indicated the presence of medial compartment joint disease (most severe lesions located in the medial coronoid process of the ulna and medial humeral epicondyle). Synovitis scores were mild overall and correlated only weakly with macroscopic cartilage damage. Intra-articular osteochondral fragments either free or attached to the synovium were found in 10 joints. Macroscopic or histologic evidence of a fragmented coronoid process was not found even in those cases with intra-articular osteochondral fragments. Lesions observed in these animals are most consistent with synovial osteochondromatosis secondary to degenerative joint disease. The pathogenesis for the medial compartmentalization of these lesions has not been established, but a fragmented medial coronoid process or osteochondritis dissecans does not appear to play a role. }, number={5}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, publisher={SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}, author={Freire, M. and Meuten, D. and Lascelles, D.}, year={2014}, month={Sep}, pages={968–978} }
 @article{simpson_bastian_michael_webster_prasad_conway_prieto_gary_goldschmidt_esplin_et al._2014, title={Sporadic naturally occurring melanoma in dogs as a preclinical model for human melanoma}, volume={27}, ISSN={["1755-148X"]}, DOI={10.1111/pcmr.12185}, abstractNote={Summary}, number={1}, journal={PIGMENT CELL & MELANOMA RESEARCH}, author={Simpson, R. Mark and Bastian, Boris C. and Michael, Helen T. and Webster, Joshua D. and Prasad, Manju L. and Conway, Catherine M. and Prieto, Victor M. and Gary, Joy M. and Goldschmidt, Michael H. and Esplin, D. Glen and et al.}, year={2014}, month={Jan} }
 @misc{meuten_law_stromberg_cullen_2013, title={From Bipeds to an Honorary Member of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists}, volume={50}, ISSN={["1544-2217"]}, DOI={10.1177/0300985813480219}, abstractNote={For a moment, we thought Dr de Lahunta would remain complimentary of our article that questioned the use of the words autopsy vs necropsy. His point is well made—if we are going to suggest nomenclature preferences, we should be accurate with our use of nomenclature. The crus or leg is, as he states, there are no 4-legged animals. We hope we have it correct this time. It has been 42 years since Dr ‘‘d’’ said to one of us (D.J.M.) in a barn at Cornell, ‘‘Hello, my name is Sandy de Lahunta; come look at this goat and let’s see if we can figure out where his neurologic deficit is.’’ Don had no idea he was about to be grilled by a legend, and the legend is still grilling. Dr Russ Cattley also reminded us of an important reference: Autopsy of the Horse, by James Rooney. Russ is absolutely correct we should have cited this excellent book and/or just followed Dr Rooney’s lead from 40 years ago. Fortunately, Dr Rooney agreed with the preference of the word autopsy and apparently felt the distinction from necropsy quite pedantic. We are enjoying the exchanges we have stimulated, and if we are correct and using the term autopsy results in more animals being autopsied, then can we support the recommendation? The autopsy remains the quality control standard for human and veterinary hospitals, yet the percentage of cases being submitted for an autopsy appears to be on the decline. Medicine, pathology, and all our specialties are dependent on follow-up data to assess diseases, diagnoses, and treatments, medical and surgical. For oncology, there is no more certain way to assess disease-free intervals, recurrence, and metastases than an autopsy. Extracting data from clinical assessment, palpation of excision lines, palpation of regional lymph nodes, and imaging body cavities are good, but they are not as definitive as the results of an autopsy. However, the number of studies that use an autopsy and histopathology to report accurate clinical outcome data is minuscule. It is essential to conclude these expensive and lengthy studies with an autopsy and histopathology. If the word autopsy is more acceptable to pet owners than necropsy, then we hope all clinicians will use this term, written and verbally, as they explain how further examination of their pet is essential to help other pets and researchers. No one better knows the value of correlating clinical signs with postmortem lesions than Dr de Lahunta. He made a distinguished career and raised neuropathology to new standards by integrating neurology and pathology (via autopsies). Thank you.}, number={3}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Law, J. M. and Stromberg, P. C. and Cullen, J. M.}, year={2013}, month={May}, pages={365–365} }
 @article{law_stromberg_meuten_cullen_2011, title={Necropsy or Autopsy? It’s All About Communication!}, volume={49}, ISSN={0300-9858 1544-2217}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300985811410722}, DOI={10.1177/0300985811410722}, abstractNote={Several of us have decided that communication is more important than tradition. Yes, Virginia, we were all drilled in the discipline of veterinary pathology by traditionalists. We’re stubborn individualists, aren’t we? Greats like John King have necropsied thousands of animals, and we want our procedure to be distinguished from the ‘‘other’’ side—the RDs (well okay, the MDs). The short answer is that ‘‘necropsy’’ literally means ‘‘death examination’’ or examination of death and finds its application in the study of bodies following death. The term is general without reference to species. ‘‘Autopsy’’ literally means ‘‘self-examination,’’ and some of us were taught that the frame of reference for ‘‘self’’ referred to the postmortem examination of ‘‘ourselves’’ or our own species, humans. As such, postmortem examination of nonhumans was proscribed from using the term and was designated ‘‘necropsy.’’ But hold on there a minute, let’s see what Webster has to say. Or as Don Meuten likes to say, ‘‘Show me the reference!’’}, number={2}, journal={Veterinary Pathology}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Law, M. and Stromberg, P. and Meuten, D. and Cullen, J.}, year={2011}, month={Jun}, pages={271–272} }
 @article{ranck_linder_haber_meuten_2008, title={Primary intimal aortic angiosarcoma in a dog}, volume={45}, ISSN={["0300-9858"]}, DOI={10.1354/vp.45-3-361}, abstractNote={ A primary intimal aortic angiosarcoma was diagnosed in a 4-year-old, spayed female German Shepherd that presented for complications of thromboembolic disease because of infarcts in multiple organs. On gross examination, aneurysmal dilatation of the aorta was associated with a friable, necrotic mass attached to the endothelial surface, which partially occluded the aortic lumen. On histologic examination, plump neoplastic spindle cells formed a plaque-like mass arising from the intima that merged with a large accumulation of fibrin and necrotic debris, and projected into the lumen. Neoplastic cells invaded periaortic vessels and were seen in some infarct-associated thromboemboli. Tumor cells expressed vimentin and CD31, with infrequent, patchy staining with factor VIII-related antigen; tumor cells were negative for cytokeratin and smooth-muscle actin. Aortic angiosarcoma is a rare malignancy in humans. This is the first description of a primary intimal aortic angiosarcoma in a dog, with immunohistochemical evidence of endothelial origin. }, number={3}, journal={VETERINARY PATHOLOGY}, author={Ranck, R. S. and Linder, K. E. and Haber, M. D. and Meuten, D. J.}, year={2008}, month={May}, pages={361–364} }
 @article{meuten_rebar_1998, title={A patient with clinical chemistry abnormalities}, volume={12}, number={1998}, journal={North American Veterinary Conference. Veterinary Proceedings}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Rebar, A.}, year={1998}, pages={114} }
 @article{meuten_rebar_1998, title={Clinical endocrinology}, volume={12}, number={1998}, journal={North American Veterinary Conference. Veterinary Proceedings}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Rebar, A.}, year={1998}, pages={117–118} }
 @article{meuten_rebar_1998, title={Cytologic diagnosis of soft tissue and lymph node abnormalities}, volume={12}, number={1998}, journal={North American Veterinary Conference. Veterinary Proceedings}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Rebar, A.}, year={1998}, pages={109–111} }
 @article{meuten_rebar_1998, title={Cytopathology of skin and subcutaneous masses}, volume={12}, number={1998}, journal={North American Veterinary Conference. Veterinary Proceedings}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Rebar, A.}, year={1998}, pages={112–113} }
 @article{meuten_rebar_1998, title={Examples of abnormalities in body effusions and clinical chemistry}, volume={12}, number={1998}, journal={North American Veterinary Conference. Veterinary Proceedings}, author={Meuten, D. J. and Rebar, A.}, year={1998}, pages={115–116} }
 @article{meuten_1998, title={Use of cytology to establish a diagnosis}, volume={12}, number={1998}, journal={North American Veterinary Conference. Veterinary Proceedings}, author={Meuten, D. J.}, year={1998}, pages={107–109} }
 @article{hawkins_davidson_meuten_rottman_al._1997, title={Cytologic identification of Toxoplasma gondii in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of experimentally infected cats}, volume={210}, number={5}, journal={Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association}, author={Hawkins, E. C. and Davidson, M. G. and Meuten, D. J. and Rottman, J. B. and al.}, year={1997}, pages={648–650} }
 @article{breitschwerdt_geoly_meuten_levine_howard_hegarty_stafford_1996, title={Myocarditis in mice and guinea pigs experimentally infected with a canine-origin Borrelia isolate from Florida}, volume={57}, number={4}, journal={American Journal of Veterinary Research}, author={Breitschwerdt, E. B. and Geoly, F. J. and Meuten, D. J. and Levine, J. F. and Howard, P. and Hegarty, B. C. and Stafford, L. C.}, year={1996}, pages={505–511} }
 @article{breitschwerdt_nicholson_kiehl_steers_meuten_levine_1994, title={Natural infections with Borrelia spirochetes in two dogs from Florida}, volume={32}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Clinical Microbiology}, author={Breitschwerdt, E. B. and Nicholson, W. L. and Kiehl, A. R. and Steers, C. and Meuten, D. J. and Levine, J. F.}, year={1994}, pages={352–357} }