What year did the medical scientists know the difference between lymphoma and TB lymphadenopathy?

What year did the clinical researchers establish that Lymphoma and tubercular lymphadenopathy (swelling of the lymph nodes) could be misdiagnosed due to the fact that if lymph nodes were not tested for TB by acid fast microscopic evaluation by the fact that the lab did not know there was a history of TB and therefore did not carry out the acid test? Apparently due to the very close mimicking of the two

diseases misdiagnosis is possible if the diseased node is not tested for TB?

[HelenC Partner TB Alert]

Good question. I am afraid that I have no idea.

[Hidden in reply to HelenC]

Hello Helen I see that you are very educated in all aspects of the tuberculosis micobacteria but the question interests me because as you will no doubt see that it is a very important issue to some of us who were unfortunate enough to have even a single lymph node affected and the scientific clinical criteria for the diagnostics have been put into legislation and a formula stated so that an accurate as possible is now seen and carried out.

You will recall Mr Percival ( I think that was his name) who had the greatest of difficulty

resolving his lymph node problems. Apparently even when the diagnostics suspect Tb

the situation may well not be 100% resolved for the technical reasons re TB.

In my case the very fact that my previous medical history was not read by any of the doctors handling my case seems incredibly stupid it did happen. I've said it before in a previous 'post' that there should be legislation in place that enforces doctors to read past medical notes in case there is a factor within those notes that affect a clinical diagnostic result.

I've also said it before that in my opinion what I have just stated should never need mentioning at all but never the less the above needs address right now within the medical profession. Two medical people have stated to me that doctors do not refer to medical history especially when the notes are 'on paper'. This statement was by a manager of our GP practice with 8000 patients on their books. My relative a professional says that they are directed to the fact that it should be the patient who tells them and informs them of their medical history. Both these cases need an explanation as to the integrity of the correctness of the reasoning behind them. I see that the medical profession proclaim that an accurate diagnosis of 80% success relies on previous medical history being read!

Everyone can make a mistake but the above should never happen due to the lax attitude which seems very prevalent in the medical context and in my view is unforgivable.Additionally it seems grossly unprofessional.