Pathology in Practice.

European Forensic Veterinary Pathology Comes of Age

Diagnostic pathology for the cancer patient

The excellence of a journal depends on the quality of peer review. The process of publishing scientific discoveries depends on considerable work by unpaid experts who volunteer time as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are the essential gatekeepers who maintain high standards of scientific rigor. Equally important, many manuscripts are significantly improved when the authors respond to insightful suggestions from peer reviewers. Veterinary Pathology has been fortunate over the years in having a pool of highly dedicated and high-quality reviewers. Scientists are motivated to spend time reviewing manuscripts for a number of reasons. Altruism and service to the community of science, and to the discipline of veterinary pathology, motivate many to spend time reading and reviewing manuscripts, but these are not the only reasons. Curiosity and the desire to stay current are equally important. Reviewers enjoy the challenge involved in the careful analysis and assessment of a manuscript. Finally, for the success of Veterinary Pathology, manuscripts must be reviewed carefully and rapidly, and this would be impossible without the active participation of the broad scientific community. Conflict with other workloads is a major reason that potential reviewers decline invitations to review manuscripts. As discussed in the 2007 American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP) Town Hall meeting, pathologists have increasing demands on their time, and the stresses of multitasking continue to increase. The problem is compounded by the retirement or death of some of the stalwart experts of veterinary pathology.

Dr. Keith Prasse is a very distinguished leader in veterinary education. He started his career achieving his BS and DVM degrees from Iowa State University (ISU). He returned to ISU after a brief period in private practice in Illinois. His well-recognized career in veterinary pathology began with his MS and PhD degrees, followed by a five-year period of teaching at ISU. Dr. Prasse joined the faculty of the University of Georgia in 1972, and thus began a long-term partnership with Dr. Bob Duncan that is arguably the foundation of veterinary clinical pathology. The textbook they authored, Veterinary Laboratory Medicine: Clinical Pathology, or "Duncan and Prasse" as it is known, remains the standard today, with later participation from Dr. Ed Mahaffey and most recently Dr. Ken Latimer. Dr. Prasse has mentored numerous graduate students and received many awards over his 23-year career in teaching, including the Norden Distinguished Teaching award twice, once at ISU and once at Georgia. His leadership as President of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists was greatly acknowledged and appreciated. Dr. Prasse's administrative service at the University of Georgia spanned 14 years, first as Associate Dean for Public Service and Outreach and later as Dean for eight years, during which time he served as President of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC). The growth of the College of Veterinary Medicine under Dean Prasse's visionary leadership was extraordinary. He led through difficult economic and political times, yet the college and its community continued to prosper. His legacy at the University of Georgia is indelible and perpetual. His outstanding leadership of the college was recognized by the Georgia Veterinary Medical Association in 2004, when he was given the Georgia Veterinarian of the Year award. Since his retirement from Georgia, Dr. Prasse has contributed greatly to the profession and to the AAVMC by leading the Foresight project. Dr. Prasse honored those attending the 2009 AAVMC Symposium by giving the Recognition Lecture. As always, his address was inspirational, and the substance of it is included here. -Sheila W. Allen, Dean, University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine.

American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) 36^th Annual Meeting: In conjunction with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP) 52^nd Annual Meeting, <i>Salt Lake City, Utah — December 1–5, 2001</i>

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

Free accessAbstractFirst published September 2006Combined 57th and 41st Annual Meetings of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and the American Society for Veterinary Clinical PathologyVolume 43, Issue 5https://doi.org/10.1354/vp.43-5-805

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

ABSTRACTS :The American College of Veterinary Pathologists 47th Annual Meeting

Neoplastic diseases are typically diagnosed by biopsy and histopathological evaluation. The pathology report is key in determining prognosis, therapeutic decisions, and overall case management and therefore requires diagnostic accuracy, completeness, and clarity. Successful management relies on collaboration between clinical veterinarians, oncologists, and pathologists. To date there has been no standardized approach or guideline for the submission, trimming, margin evaluation, or reporting of neoplastic biopsy specimens in veterinary medicine. To address this issue, a committee consisting of veterinary pathologists and oncologists was established under the auspices of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists Oncology Committee. These consensus guidelines were subsequently reviewed and endorsed by a large international group of veterinary pathologists. These recommended guidelines are not mandated but rather exist to help clinicians and veterinary pathologists optimally handle neoplastic biopsy samples. Many of these guidelines represent the collective experience of the committee members and consensus group when assessing neoplastic lesions from veterinary patients but have not met the rigors of definitive scientific study and investigation. These questions of technique, analysis, and evaluation should be put through formal scrutiny in rigorous clinical studies in the near future so that more definitive guidelines can be derived.

The American Society of Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) 54th Annual Meeting in conjunction with the American College of Veterinary Pathology (ACVP) 70th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA—November 9‐13, 2019