Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Роль и критерии оценки морфологического регресса рака молочной железы после неоадъювантной терапии
Роль и критерии оценки морфологического регресса рака молочной железы после неоадъювантной терапии
Франк Г.А., Илатовская М.Е., Андреева Ю.Ю.и др. Роль и критерии оценки морфологического регресса рака молочной железы после неоадъювантной терапии. Современная онкология. 2015; 17 (2): 30–34.
________________________________________________
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Аннотация
Определение степени регресса рака молочной железы после неоадъювантной терапии дает возможность предсказать вероятность благоприятного исхода лечения пациенток в долговременной перспективе. В клинических исследованиях оценка полного морфологического регресса после неоадъювантной терапии часто является промежуточной целью исследования. В связи с этим важно понимать, какие критерии оценки морфологического регресса наиболее важны и какие проблемы существуют в этой области на сегодняшний день.
Ключевые слова: рак молочной железы, патоморфоз, морфологический регресс, неоадъювантная терапия.
Key words: breast cancer, pathologic complete response, neoadjuvant therapy.
Ключевые слова: рак молочной железы, патоморфоз, морфологический регресс, неоадъювантная терапия.
________________________________________________
Key words: breast cancer, pathologic complete response, neoadjuvant therapy.
Полный текст
Список литературы
1. Андреева Ю.Ю. и др. Методологические аспекты морфологической диагностики и оценки лечебного патоморфоза тройного негативного рака молочной железы. Фарматека. 2014; 4: 13–8. / Andreeva Iu.Iu. i dr. Metodologicheskie aspekty morfologicheskoi diagnostiki i otsenki lechebnogo patomorfoza troinogo negativnogo raka molochnoi zhelezy. Farmateka. 2014; 4: 13–8. [in Russian]
2. Андреева Ю.Ю. и др. Рак молочной железы. Практическое руководство для врачей. Под ред. Г.А.Франка, Л.Э.Завалишиной, К.М.Пожарисского. М.: Практическая медицина, 2014. / Andreeva Iu.Iu. i dr. Rak molochnoi zhelezy. Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo dlia vrachei. Pod red. G.A.Franka, L.E.Zavalishinoi, K.M.Pozharisskogo. M.: Prakticheskaia meditsina, 2014. [in Russian]
3. Колядина И.В., Поддубная И.В. Современные возможности терапии HER2-положительного рака молочной железы (по материалам клинических исследований). Современная онкология. 2014; 4: 10–20. / Kolyadina I.V., Poddubnaya I.V. Modern possibilities of HER2-positive breast cancer treatment (based on clinical trials). Journal of modern oncology. 2014; 4: 10–20. [in Russian]
4. Лавникова Г.А. Гистологический метод количественной оценки терапевтического повреждения опухоли. М.: Методические рекомендации, 1979. / Lavnikova G.A. Gistologicheskii metod kolichestvennoi otsenki terapevticheskogo povrezhdeniia opukholi. M.: Metodicheskie rekomendatsii, 1979. [in Russian]
5. Лушников Е.Ф., Абросимов А.Ю. Учение Я. Л. Рапопорта о патоморфозе: прошлое и настоящее. Арх. патологии. 2013; 4: 62–6. / Lushnikov E.F., Abrosimov A.Iu. Uchenie Ia. L. Rapoporta o patomorfoze: proshloe i nastoiashchee. Arkh. patologii. 2013; 4: 62–6. [in Russian]
6. Семиглазов В.Ф., Семиглазов В.В. и др. Основные маркеры долгосрочной эффективности неоадъювантной терапии рака молочной железы (обзор литературы). Современная онкология. 2013; 4. / Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V et al. The main markers of the long-term efficiency of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (review of literature). Journal of modern oncology. 2013; 4.
7. Amat S et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002; 20 (4): 791–6.
8. Amat S et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94 (3): 255–63.
9. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas. 2nd Ed. 2012; p. 422–6.
10. Bossuyt V et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 2015; p. 1–12.
11. Carey LA et al. American joint committee on cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (15): 1137–42.
12. Cortazar P et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384 (9938): 164–72.
13. Fan F. Evaluation and Reporting of Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009; 3 (2): 58–63.
14. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Pathologic Complete Response in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval 2012.
15. Gampenrieder SP, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Breast Cancer: Past, Present and Future. J Oncol 2013; 2013: 1–12.
16. Gianni L et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): Follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (6): 640–7.
17. Kaufmann M et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: New perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 (12): 1927–34.
18. Loya A et al. Prognostic significance of occult axillary lymph node metastases after chemotherapy-induced pathologic complete response of cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 2009; 115 (8): 1605–12.
19. Von Minckwitz G et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (29): 3623–30.
20. Ogston KN et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12 (5): 320–7.
21. Penault-Llorca F et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008; 39 (8): 1221–8.
22. Pinder SE et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007; 50 (4): 409–17.
23. Provenzano E et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013; 108 (4): 866–72.
24. Sahoo S, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. Pathology of Neoadjuvant Therapeutic Response of Breast Carcinoma. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012; p. 519–33.
25. Sataloff DM et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180 (3): 297–306.
26. Schneeweiss A et al. Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab- and trastuzumab-based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16 (4): R73.
27. Symmans WF et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (28): 4414–22.
2. Andreeva Iu.Iu. i dr. Rak molochnoi zhelezy. Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo dlia vrachei. Pod red. G.A.Franka, L.E.Zavalishinoi, K.M.Pozharisskogo. M.: Prakticheskaia meditsina, 2014. [in Russian]
3. Kolyadina I.V., Poddubnaya I.V. Modern possibilities of HER2-positive breast cancer treatment (based on clinical trials). Journal of modern oncology. 2014; 4: 10–20. [in Russian]
4. Lavnikova G.A. Gistologicheskii metod kolichestvennoi otsenki terapevticheskogo povrezhdeniia opukholi. M.: Metodicheskie rekomendatsii, 1979. [in Russian]
5. Lushnikov E.F., Abrosimov A.Iu. Uchenie Ia. L. Rapoporta o patomorfoze: proshloe i nastoiashchee. Arkh. patologii. 2013; 4: 62–6. [in Russian]
6. Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V et al. The main markers of the long-term efficiency of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (review of literature). Journal of modern oncology. 2013; 4.
7. Amat S et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002; 20 (4): 791–6.
8. Amat S et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94 (3): 255–63.
9. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas. 2nd Ed. 2012; p. 422–6.
10. Bossuyt V et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 2015; p. 1–12.
11. Carey LA et al. American joint committee on cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (15): 1137–42.
12. Cortazar P et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384 (9938): 164–72.
13. Fan F. Evaluation and Reporting of Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009; 3 (2): 58–63.
14. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Pathologic Complete Response in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval 2012.
15. Gampenrieder SP, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Breast Cancer: Past, Present and Future. J Oncol 2013; 2013: 1–12.
16. Gianni L et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): Follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (6): 640–7.
17. Kaufmann M et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: New perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 (12): 1927–34.
18. Loya A et al. Prognostic significance of occult axillary lymph node metastases after chemotherapy-induced pathologic complete response of cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 2009; 115 (8): 1605–12.
19. Von Minckwitz G et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (29): 3623–30.
20. Ogston KN et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12 (5): 320–7.
21. Penault-Llorca F et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008; 39 (8): 1221–8.
22. Pinder SE et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007; 50 (4): 409–17.
23. Provenzano E et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013; 108 (4): 866–72.
24. Sahoo S, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. Pathology of Neoadjuvant Therapeutic Response of Breast Carcinoma. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012; p. 519–33.
25. Sataloff DM et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180 (3): 297–306.
26. Schneeweiss A et al. Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab- and trastuzumab-based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16 (4): R73.
27. Symmans WF et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (28): 4414–22.
2. Андреева Ю.Ю. и др. Рак молочной железы. Практическое руководство для врачей. Под ред. Г.А.Франка, Л.Э.Завалишиной, К.М.Пожарисского. М.: Практическая медицина, 2014. / Andreeva Iu.Iu. i dr. Rak molochnoi zhelezy. Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo dlia vrachei. Pod red. G.A.Franka, L.E.Zavalishinoi, K.M.Pozharisskogo. M.: Prakticheskaia meditsina, 2014. [in Russian]
3. Колядина И.В., Поддубная И.В. Современные возможности терапии HER2-положительного рака молочной железы (по материалам клинических исследований). Современная онкология. 2014; 4: 10–20. / Kolyadina I.V., Poddubnaya I.V. Modern possibilities of HER2-positive breast cancer treatment (based on clinical trials). Journal of modern oncology. 2014; 4: 10–20. [in Russian]
4. Лавникова Г.А. Гистологический метод количественной оценки терапевтического повреждения опухоли. М.: Методические рекомендации, 1979. / Lavnikova G.A. Gistologicheskii metod kolichestvennoi otsenki terapevticheskogo povrezhdeniia opukholi. M.: Metodicheskie rekomendatsii, 1979. [in Russian]
5. Лушников Е.Ф., Абросимов А.Ю. Учение Я. Л. Рапопорта о патоморфозе: прошлое и настоящее. Арх. патологии. 2013; 4: 62–6. / Lushnikov E.F., Abrosimov A.Iu. Uchenie Ia. L. Rapoporta o patomorfoze: proshloe i nastoiashchee. Arkh. patologii. 2013; 4: 62–6. [in Russian]
6. Семиглазов В.Ф., Семиглазов В.В. и др. Основные маркеры долгосрочной эффективности неоадъювантной терапии рака молочной железы (обзор литературы). Современная онкология. 2013; 4. / Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V et al. The main markers of the long-term efficiency of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (review of literature). Journal of modern oncology. 2013; 4.
7. Amat S et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002; 20 (4): 791–6.
8. Amat S et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94 (3): 255–63.
9. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas. 2nd Ed. 2012; p. 422–6.
10. Bossuyt V et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 2015; p. 1–12.
11. Carey LA et al. American joint committee on cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (15): 1137–42.
12. Cortazar P et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384 (9938): 164–72.
13. Fan F. Evaluation and Reporting of Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009; 3 (2): 58–63.
14. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Pathologic Complete Response in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval 2012.
15. Gampenrieder SP, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Breast Cancer: Past, Present and Future. J Oncol 2013; 2013: 1–12.
16. Gianni L et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): Follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (6): 640–7.
17. Kaufmann M et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: New perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 (12): 1927–34.
18. Loya A et al. Prognostic significance of occult axillary lymph node metastases after chemotherapy-induced pathologic complete response of cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 2009; 115 (8): 1605–12.
19. Von Minckwitz G et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (29): 3623–30.
20. Ogston KN et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12 (5): 320–7.
21. Penault-Llorca F et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008; 39 (8): 1221–8.
22. Pinder SE et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007; 50 (4): 409–17.
23. Provenzano E et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013; 108 (4): 866–72.
24. Sahoo S, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. Pathology of Neoadjuvant Therapeutic Response of Breast Carcinoma. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012; p. 519–33.
25. Sataloff DM et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180 (3): 297–306.
26. Schneeweiss A et al. Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab- and trastuzumab-based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16 (4): R73.
27. Symmans WF et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (28): 4414–22.
________________________________________________
2. Andreeva Iu.Iu. i dr. Rak molochnoi zhelezy. Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo dlia vrachei. Pod red. G.A.Franka, L.E.Zavalishinoi, K.M.Pozharisskogo. M.: Prakticheskaia meditsina, 2014. [in Russian]
3. Kolyadina I.V., Poddubnaya I.V. Modern possibilities of HER2-positive breast cancer treatment (based on clinical trials). Journal of modern oncology. 2014; 4: 10–20. [in Russian]
4. Lavnikova G.A. Gistologicheskii metod kolichestvennoi otsenki terapevticheskogo povrezhdeniia opukholi. M.: Metodicheskie rekomendatsii, 1979. [in Russian]
5. Lushnikov E.F., Abrosimov A.Iu. Uchenie Ia. L. Rapoporta o patomorfoze: proshloe i nastoiashchee. Arkh. patologii. 2013; 4: 62–6. [in Russian]
6. Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V et al. The main markers of the long-term efficiency of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (review of literature). Journal of modern oncology. 2013; 4.
7. Amat S et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002; 20 (4): 791–6.
8. Amat S et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94 (3): 255–63.
9. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas. 2nd Ed. 2012; p. 422–6.
10. Bossuyt V et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 2015; p. 1–12.
11. Carey LA et al. American joint committee on cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (15): 1137–42.
12. Cortazar P et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384 (9938): 164–72.
13. Fan F. Evaluation and Reporting of Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009; 3 (2): 58–63.
14. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Pathologic Complete Response in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval 2012.
15. Gampenrieder SP, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Breast Cancer: Past, Present and Future. J Oncol 2013; 2013: 1–12.
16. Gianni L et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): Follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (6): 640–7.
17. Kaufmann M et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: New perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 (12): 1927–34.
18. Loya A et al. Prognostic significance of occult axillary lymph node metastases after chemotherapy-induced pathologic complete response of cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 2009; 115 (8): 1605–12.
19. Von Minckwitz G et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (29): 3623–30.
20. Ogston KN et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12 (5): 320–7.
21. Penault-Llorca F et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008; 39 (8): 1221–8.
22. Pinder SE et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007; 50 (4): 409–17.
23. Provenzano E et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013; 108 (4): 866–72.
24. Sahoo S, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. Pathology of Neoadjuvant Therapeutic Response of Breast Carcinoma. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012; p. 519–33.
25. Sataloff DM et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180 (3): 297–306.
26. Schneeweiss A et al. Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab- and trastuzumab-based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16 (4): R73.
27. Symmans WF et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (28): 4414–22.
Авторы
Г.А.Франк, М.Е.Илатовская, Ю.Ю.Андреева, Л.Э.Завалишина*
ГБОУ ДПО Российская медицинская академия последипломного образования Минздрава России. 125284, Россия, Москва, ул. Поликарпова, д. 10/12
*zavalishina1@mail.ru
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Polikarpova, d. 10/12
*zavalishina1@mail.ru
ГБОУ ДПО Российская медицинская академия последипломного образования Минздрава России. 125284, Россия, Москва, ул. Поликарпова, д. 10/12
*zavalishina1@mail.ru
________________________________________________
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Polikarpova, d. 10/12
*zavalishina1@mail.ru
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.