What inspired you to study medicine, and then to specialize in pathology?
I wanted to be a doctor since I was around five years old. My fascination with science, along with the opportunity to help people in meaningful ways, initially inspired me to study medicine.
As I progressed through my medical training, I became increasingly drawn to the combination of intellectual curiosity and diagnostic problem-solving in pathology, and its direct impact on patient care behind the scenes. In lectures, I was fascinated by how pathology serves as the foundation for so many clinical decisions and how pathologists play a critical role in guiding diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. I was also drawn to the constant learning, the multidisciplinary collaboration, and the ability to contribute to both patient care and medical education.
Over time, pathology became the perfect intersection of my interests in medicine, science, and analytical thinking.
When you moved from Italy to the USA to complete your postgraduate studies, what were the most striking cultural differences you encountered?
When I arrived in the US in the early 1990s, residency training was already highly organized, formalized, and centered around progressive responsibility. There was a strong emphasis on hands-on clinical decision-making, multidisciplinary teamwork, and structured evaluation. Trainees were often expected to voice opinions and actively participate in patient management discussions.
Another major difference was the research infrastructure and funding opportunities. In the US, academic medicine placed significant emphasis on research productivity. Research funding opportunities were substantially larger, and interdisciplinary collaboration was more common, with less rigid separation between departments and specialties.
How did that cultural adaptation shape your career?
Adapting to the US system was both challenging and transformative for me. It taught me the importance of initiative, communication, and collaboration, while also allowing me to appreciate the strong intellectual and educational foundations I had received in Italy.
Experiencing both systems has been incredibly valuable because it allowed me to appreciate the strengths of each culture. I believe it has made me more adaptable, collaborative, inquisitive, and thoughtful.
Ultimately, those experiences shaped the way I approach mentorship, education, and leadership today.
What was your path into leadership?
My path was neither linear nor the result of a single opportunity. It was built through continuous learning, collaboration, resilience, and a genuine commitment to supporting people and advancing the mission of academic pathology. Throughout my journey, mentorship played a major role. I benefited greatly from leaders, colleagues, family, and friends who invested time in me, provided guidance, and encouraged me to pursue opportunities that initially felt outside my comfort zone.
I initially focused primarily on becoming the best physician, educator, and diagnostician I could be. But, early in my career, I became increasingly interested in how departments function, team dynamics, and systems improvement.
As I became more involved in departmental service, I had opportunities to lead programs, mentor junior colleagues, and participate in operational and strategic initiatives. Those experiences helped me realize that leadership is about creating environments where others can succeed.
I also learned that effective leadership requires skills beyond scientific or clinical expertise. Communication, relationship-building, financial understanding, conflict resolution, and strategic thinking all become critically important. Over time, I took on increasing leadership responsibilities, including roles related to operations and divisional leadership.
Each role brought new challenges and learning opportunities and gradually prepared me for the broader responsibilities of serving as Chair. National leadership experiences and involvement in professional organizations also expanded my perspective on the field and the evolving challenges facing pathology and academic medicine.
What are your main priorities for your presidency of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP)?
As President of USCAP, I am committed to advancing our mission by expanding innovative educational offerings and accelerating the thoughtful integration of emerging technologies into pathology practice and training.
Pathology is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by digital pathology, computational tools, and artificial intelligence (AI). These advances present an extraordinary opportunity to enhance diagnostic excellence, improve education, foster collaboration, and ultimately advance patient care. My priority is to ensure that USCAP remains at the forefront of this evolution by developing accessible, high-quality, and forward-looking educational experiences for pathologists at every career stage and across the globe.
I envision an educational ecosystem that combines traditional strengths in morphologic pathology with cutting-edge digital platforms, interactive learning environments, virtual microscopy, and AI-enabled educational tools. By embracing innovation while maintaining our commitment to scientific rigor and excellence, we can better prepare current and future pathologists for the rapidly evolving practice environment.
Given that women are currently under-represented in leadership positions in pathology, what strategies do you think academic centers need to introduce to redress the gender balance?
Addressing this imbalance requires intentional and sustained institutional efforts. Academic centers can begin by building transparent leadership development pathways early in faculty careers. Importantly, sponsorship is critical: leaders must actively advocate for talented faculty by nominating them for visible roles, speaking engagements, national committees, and promotion opportunities.
Equally important is fostering a culture in which diverse leadership styles are valued. Women need to see role models who demonstrate that leadership is both attainable and compatible with different career paths and personal priorities. Visibility matters greatly for trainees and junior faculty considering future leadership roles.
Ultimately, improving gender balance in leadership is not simply an issue of representation; it strengthens institutions by broadening perspectives, enhancing innovation, improving mentorship cultures, and creating leadership teams that better reflect the workforce and communities we serve.
What is your approach to tackling gender bias in academia?
As a leader, I want to contribute to a culture where concerns can be raised openly and where individuals feel respected, valued, and empowered to succeed. An effective way to address bias is to create environments where people actively support one another, ensure diverse voices are heard, and advocate for equitable opportunities.
The best long-term response to bias is building strong, inclusive institutions that prioritize merit, professionalism, transparency, and opportunity for all.
What advice would you offer to other women with aspirations for leadership in pathology?
One important piece is to be intentional about visibility. Leadership opportunities often come to those who are present in the rooms where decisions are made, who volunteer for institutional projects, and who make their contributions visible to others. That doesn’t mean self-promotion in a superficial sense, but rather consistently making sure your work, impact, and interests are known beyond your immediate circle.
In a field where much of the work is invisible sign-out, leadership visibility usually comes from a clear niche: a diagnostic expertise area, an informatics or digital pathology focus, a quality initiative, or an educational footprint. Women who advance often do so by ensuring that their work is not only excellent but also associated with a domain others immediately recognize and rely on. That recognition becomes the basis for committee appointments, invited talks, and institutional trust.
In addition, it is useful to periodically ensure that your leadership aspirations are known in concrete terms, not just general interest in advancement. It also helps to be strategic about saying yes and no. Choosing commitments that align with your long-term direction is protective of one’s ability to grow into larger roles.
Finally, there is an important cultural consideration in pathology. Many strong leaders emerge from being “the dependable expert” first, but leadership requires a shift from doing the work well to shaping how the work is done. That transition – moving from service provider to systems designer – is often the defining step toward departmental or institutional leadership.
What advice would you offer to your younger self, at the beginning of your career?
It is easy to become broadly competent without becoming distinctly recognized. I would say, "Be more intentional, earlier in your career, about what you want to be known for."
Focus on doing the work well – getting the diagnosis right, being reliable on service, and flexible when help is needed. Your diagnostic excellence is necessary, but it is not enough on its own to shape a career. Visibility, relationships, and the problems you choose to engage with beyond sign-out are equally important. Choosing an area of focus does not limit you; it actually creates the platform from which your broader contributions become visible.
Don’t wait to feel fully ready before stepping into leadership roles. In academic medicine, readiness is rarely complete in advance. Growth comes from being slightly ahead of your comfort zone, learning in real time, and allowing yourself to evolve into the role rather than waiting for a perfect sense of preparedness. Gaining broader perspective takes time to develop, but it is where the most meaningful impact tends to live.
And finally, I would say, "Be authentic and passionate about everything you do."
Newsletters
Receive the latest pathologist news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
