Abstract
The question of the recognition of endothelioma as a pathologic entity has always been disputable. The lax requirements for diagnosing endothelioma laid down by Golgi 1 in 1869 and by Kolaczek 2 in 1895 led to widely spread and frequent diagnoses of endothelioma in cases in which no such condition was present. It was Volkmann 3 who protested against these en masse diagnoses of endothelioma. Volkmann pointed out the importance for diagnosis of studying the origin and the development of the tumor rather than the cytology present. The influence of Kolaczek's paper, however, was not offset by Volkmann's arguments. The psychologic factors are evident. Kolaczek's requirement for a diagnosis of endothelioma—the presence of blood between the acinous groups of tumor cells—made this diagnosis popular in complex or uncommon tumors. This diagnostic tendency was applied also to uncommon bone tumors. Howard and Crile's article 4 of twenty years ago is an
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
