Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения.
Чтобы посмотреть материал полностью
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.
Чтобы посмотреть материал полностью
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.