Per la valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale della Campania. Il contributo degli studi medio- e neo-latini

L’idea di allestire il presente volume è nata dall’esigenza di mettere a fuoco alcuni fra i complessi rapporti esistenti fra patrimoni materiali ed immateriali della cultura – una tematica cardine nella ricerca umanistica degli ultimi decenni – ma anche dalla volontà di meditare sul contributo che gli studi medio- e neo-latini hanno dato e possono ancora dare nell’ottica della valorizzazione del territorio. A tale scopo si è focalizzata l’attenzione sul patrimonio culturale della Campania che, con la sua variegata ricchezza, sia materiale, sia immateriale, e col suo esser divenuto centro e crocevia di molteplici ed importanti tradizioni, si presta a fornire interessanti spunti per ogni genere di ricerche e dibattiti. Così, ha trovato luogo qui, sotto una medesima copertina, una variegata miscellanea di saggi che mirano a sottolineare come la letteratura in generale ed in particolare quella medio- e neo-latina manifestino un’intrinseca capacità, nella loro qualità di patrimonio immateriale della cultura, di spiegarne ed al tempo stesso valorizzarne i patrimoni materiali all’interno di un processo osmotico che non può prescindere da nessuno degli elementi in gioco e, men che mai, dall’ambito del territorio in cui quei patrimoni abbiano preso forma ed abbiano trovato la loro naturale collocazione. Emerge la coscienza che lo studio della letteratura e di ogni tipo di patrimonio immateriale della cultura non rappresenti affatto una raffinata forma d’ozio di viziati parassiti di una società che sia costretta a sopportarne inutilmente il peso, ma costituisca invece la scaturigine di nuove ed imprescindibili occasioni per valorizzarne i patrimoni materiali in tutte le loro forme. Si ribadisce altresì il valore della lingua e della cultura medio- e neo-latine come espressione della comune radice della maggior parte della cultura moderna occidentale: esse hanno lasciato un’impronta senz’altro indelebile, ma troppo spesso negata, o relegata sotto la soglia della nostra coscienza lucida, su buona parte di quel che ci sembra null’altro che l’ovvio patrimonio del nostro presente

Sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy for the detection of gastric and duodenal lesions in dogs and cats

Our aim was to determine how many endoscopic biopsies were necessary to have 99% confidence of finding a gastric/duodenal lesion, and if quality of tissue sample impacted the number of pieces of tissue required for diagnosis. Histopathology slides containing 2,126 tissue samples from 130 animals were solicited from 8 institutions in 5 countries. Slides were randomized using a table of random numbers and coded. Each tissue on each slide was evaluated for diagnosis, severity of pathologic change and quality of sample. Quality of biopsy was assessed as inadequate, marginal, adequate or superior. Severity of lesion was assessed as unreadable, normal, mild, moderate or severe. Sensitivity (Se) was estimated overall and by subsets of species (cat versus dog), biopsy quality (0-3), organ (stomach, duodenum), participating institution and specific lesion type. There was an inverse linear relationship between the number of biopsies needed for diagnosis and the quality of the tissue samples. If tissue quality was not considered, 99% confidence for finding increased cellularity/epithelial lesions required 3 pieces of duodenal tissue in cats and 6 in dogs; and 4 gastric pieces in cats and 3 in dogs. Finding blunt villi required 6 pieces in cats and 9 in dogs; 18 pieces for canine duodenal crypt lesions (this fell to 13 when only adequate tissue samples are considered); and 8 pieces for canine lymphangiectasia. The necessity of taking sufficient numbers of adequate quality biopsies was confirmed, and adequate tissue samples were significantly more likely to find lesions than poor tissue samples

CORRELATION BETWEEN PATHOLOGISTS ASSESSING ENDOSCOPIC GASTRIC AND INTESTINAL BIOPSIES USING STANDARDIZED TEMPLATES

Using a set of standardized templates and text (J. Comp. Pathol. 2008; 137:S1-S34), we examined the histologic agreement between four board-certified pathologists who had independently evaluated endoscopic mucosal biopsies of the canine and feline stomach and intestine. Slides from 85 dogs and 41 cats were obtained from 7 institutions, and pathologists scored histological findings (e.g., cellularity, fibrosis, lymphangiectasia) as normal, mild, moderate, or severe. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to determine pair-wise correlation between pathologists for variable scores. Fisher’s two-sided exact test was used to test for equality of proportions between pathologists and severity of individual histological signs and between the severity assessments of histological variables and clinical signs. Correlation between pathologists was very weak for eosinophils and neutrophils in the small intestines (-0.081 to 0.404 and -034 to 0.374, respectively) and for small intestinal fibrosis (0.114-0.324). Summary diagnosis of neutrophilic inflammation (-0.033 to 0.169) and lymphangiectasia (-0.039 to 0.252) were also weak but, this may have been primarily due to the low frequency of moderate to severe scores for these two variables. The severity of gastric and duodenal histological findings were not significantly correlated with the assessment of clinical signs or clinicopathologic findings. We conclude that variation in staining and tissue processing may have contributed to (1) lack of agreement between pathologists on eosinophils and neutrophils, and (2) inconsistent ability to assess fibrosis. Standardization of staining and processing is critical to accurate analysis

CORRELATION BETWEEN PATHOLOGISTS ASSESSING ENDOSCOPIC GASTRIC AND INTESTINAL BIOPSIES USING WSAVA GUIDELINES

We examined agreement between four board-certified pathologists who independently evaluated endoscopic mucosal biopsies of canine and feline stomach and intestine using the WSAVA Guidelines (J Comp Pathol 2008, 138:S1-43). Slides with 2,287 pieces of tissue from 85 dogs and 41 cats were obtained from 7 institutions. Pathologists scored 16 histological parameters as normal, mild, moderate or severe. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to determine pair-wise correlation between individual pathologists (i.e., 6 comparisons for each histologic lesion). Correlation was consistently very weak (i.e., < 0.40) for gastric neutrophils (0.06-0.31), duodenal neutrophils (-0.03-0.37) duodenal eosinophils (0.08-0.40), deep gastric injury (5 of 6 comparisons were -0.03-0.38) and duodenal fibrosis (0.11-0.32). Inconsistent correlations that tended to be weak included gastric eosinophils (3 of 6 comparisons were 0.06-0.32) and gastric atrophy (2 of 6 comparisons were 0.18-0.28). All comparisons for gastric intraepithelial lymphocytes (0.44-0.66), gastric lamina proprial lymphocytes (0.48-0.66), gastric fibrosis (0.41-0.69), gastric follicular hyperplasia (0.44-0.61) and duodenal crypt lesions (0.51-0.73) were stronger. Duodenal intraepithelial lymphocytes, lamina proprial lymphocytes, dilated lacteals and blunt villi each had 1 of 6 comparisons that was < 0.40. However, if the pair-wise correlation between one specific set of pathologists were consistently eliminated, then 24 of the 25 remaining comparisons of these duodenal tissues were 0.42-0.73. Our data show that additional work is necessary to accomplish consistency on select histologic lesions (neutrophils, eosinophils, duodenal fibrosis, gastric atrophy, deep gastric injury).We suspect variation in staining and tissue processing contributed to lack of agreement between pathologists on eosinophils and neutrophils