Umbilical endometriosis in a woman with bicornuate uterus.

A 39-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a tender nodule on the umbilicus that had been present for 6 months. She stated that it had slowly been increasing in size and would occasionally open up and crust over with dried blood. Physical examination revealed a 4-mm firm, tender, brown papule in the umbilicus (Figure 1). She had a history of chronic pelvic pain and exploratory laparoscopy for endometriosis 10 years prior, at which time the diagnosis ofa bicornuate uterus was made. Subsequently, hysterectomy was performed (Figure 2) at which time the entire umbilical lesion was excised. Histopathology revealed branching tubular glands in the dermis lined by stratified columnar epithelium, surrounded by small cells with scant cytoplasm, characteristic of proliferative-phase endometrial stroma (Figure 3 and Figure 4). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of umbilical endometriosis (Villar's nodule). Subsequent examination revealed no evidence of recurrence.

Incidence and characteristics of vancomycin nonsusceptible strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Hershey Medical Center.

All 982 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains collected from August 2006 to December 2007 were tested for vancomycin susceptibility by using 3-microg/ml vancomycin brain heart infusion screening plates, a vancomycin Etest, and a vancomycin/teicoplanin macro Etest. Three vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) (0.3%) and two heterogeneous VISA (0.2%) isolates were identified. The screening method yielded 895 cases of < or =1 colony and 87 positive results (with growth of >1 colony after 48 h); further Etests showed 82/87 isolates with growth on screening plates to be false positive. Repeat testing showed a false-positivity rate of only 15 of the original 87 isolates by plate screening.

An examination of professional and ethical issues in the fellowship application process in pathology.

Approximately 34 medical specialty and subspecialty fellowship programs in the United States have formalized the application process through the National Resident Matching Program. This approach sets standards for the application process, offers a formalized match similar to that for residency programs, functions within a specific timeline, and establishes binding rules of behavior for both applicants and programs. For fellowship programs that operate outside the National Resident Matching Program, such as those in pathology, no published guidelines exist to help programs and applicants address the many questions and problems that can arise. As a result, programs are free to set their own timelines for interviews, application requirements, contract negotiations and finalizations, and other details. Consequently, applicants often feel pressured to apply earlier and earlier in their residency for competitive fellowship programs, are often required to fill out multiple unique applications, may feel no "loyalty" toward honoring an acceptance without a contract, and often feel disenfranchised by the whole process. This article addresses professional and ethical aspects of the current application process and offers possible solutions for improving it.