Reply to comments: Atypical myocytes: A quirky impersonator in surgical scar endometriosis

Dear Editor, We thank the esteemed readers for their insightful comments on our recently published letter and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our rationale for using the term “atypical myocytes.” It is encouraging to learn that the readers have encountered similar histomorphological findings in abdominal wall endometriosis and concur with us on importance of correctly identifying regenerating myocytes to avoid misdiagnosis of malignancy. We respectfully acknowledge their concerns regarding our use of the term “atypical.” As rightly pointed out, this term carries specific connotations in oncologic pathology, often implying premalignant or neoplastic change. However, our use of “atypical” was intended in a descriptive and contextual manner to highlight morphological features—namely, bizarre nuclei, cytomegaly, and pleomorphism—that are not typically expected in mature skeletal muscle fibers. The intent was to draw an attention to the diagnostic pitfall posed by these cells rather than to imply a pathological or preneoplastic process. We appreciate the readers’ emphasis on the importance of terminological precision and in hindsight a more neutral term such as “regenerating myocytes with atypical morphology” may have better conveyed our diagnostic caution without semantic ambiguity. In the spirit of the readers’ closing literary reference, we fully agree that language in pathology must be used with care and precision. However, as Maya Angelou aptly noted, “Words mean more than what is set down on paper. It takes the human voice to infuse them with deeper meaning.” In our case, the word “atypical” was used descriptively, grounded in histopathological context, with no intent to suggest neoplastic transformation. We appreciate the readers reminder that language must be used carefully in scientific communication. However, as pathologists, our terminology must ultimately serve the purpose of accurate diagnosis and effective communication, rather than rigid adherence to literal definitions. As has been well stated, “Terminology in pathology must serve diagnosis—not semantics. Words derive their true meaning from context, morphology, and clinical correlation.” In conclusion, we thank the readers for their collegial and constructive feedback and agree wholeheartedly on the need for precise terminology in pathology. Our primary aim was to highlight an unusual histological finding that could mimic malignancy and promote awareness among fellow pathologists to prevent overdiagnosis. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.