Literature DB >> 11381367

Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma.

A E Sehdev1, C C Pan, J I Epstein.   

Abstract

Scant data are available comparing sampling methods of radical prostatectomy specimens performed for clinical stage T1c (nonpalpable) cancer. Seventy-eight stage T1c radical prostatectomies that had 1 or more of the following adverse pathologic findings-Gleason score > or = 7, positive margins, and extraprostatic extension-were compared using 10 different sampling techniques. Of the 78 entirely submitted cases, 52 had Gleason score > or = 7, 14 had positive margins, and 54 had extraprostatic extension (mean 34 slides). Of the partial sampling methods, we favor the following two methods. The first is submitting every posterior section plus 1 midanterior section from right and left sides; if either of these anterior sections show sizeable tumor, all ipsilateral anterior slides are examined. This method detects 98% of tumors with Gleason score > or = 7, 100% of positive margins, and 96% of cases with extraprostatic extension (mean 27 slides). The second method is to use the above method but restrict it to sections ipsilateral to the previous positive needle biopsy. This method detects 92% of tumors with Gleason score > or = 7, 93% of positive margins, and 85% of cases with extraprostatic extension (mean 17 slides). Partial sampling can detect important prognostic parameters. By balancing the extra expense and time involved to process and examine additional sections with the risk of missing important prognostic parameters, pathologists can decide which sampling method to use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11381367     DOI: 10.1053/hupa.2001.24322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  11 in total

1.  Potentially clinically relevant prostate cancer is found more frequently after complete than after partial histopathological processing of radical cystoprostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  H M Fritsche; A Aziz; F Eder; W Otto; S Denzinger; W F Wieland; M May; F Hofstädter; A Hartmann; M Burger
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality.

Authors:  Jonathan L Wright; Bruce L Dalkin; Lawrence D True; William J Ellis; Janet L Stanford; Paul H Lange; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Next-generation prostate cancer biobanking: toward a processing protocol amenable for the International Cancer Genome Consortium.

Authors:  Raquel Esgueva; Kyung Park; Robert Kim; Naoki Kitabayashi; Christopher E Barbieri; Philip J Dorsey; Cyril Abraham; Samprit Banerjee; Robert A Leung; Ashutosh K Tewari; Stéphane Terry; Maria M Shevchuk; David S Rickman; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Diagn Mol Pathol       Date:  2012-06

4.  Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality.

Authors:  Heather J Chalfin; Michael Dinizo; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Elizabeth Humphreys; Misop Han
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Current prostate biopsy protocols cannot reliably identify patients for focal therapy: correlation of low-risk prostate cancer on biopsy with radical prostatectomy findings.

Authors:  Philip Quann; David F Jarrard; Wei Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2010-03-30

6.  Partial versus complete prostatectomy specimen sampling: prospective non-inferiority study for pT3a tumours and surgical margin involvement.

Authors:  Eelco R P Collette; Michael A den Bakker; Sjoerd O Klaver; André N Vis; Mike Kliffen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total embedding with large-format histology.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Antonio Lopez Beltran; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Liang Cheng; Marina Scarpelli
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2012-07-10

Review 8.  Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.

Authors:  Jennifer Gordetsky; Jonathan Epstein
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.644

9.  Light-sheet microscopy for slide-free non-destructive pathology of large clinical specimens.

Authors:  Adam K Glaser; Nicholas P Reder; Ye Chen; Erin F McCarty; Chengbo Yin; Linpeng Wei; Yu Wang; Lawrence D True; Jonathan T C Liu
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 25.671

10.  Urinary DNA methylation biomarkers for prediction of prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging.

Authors:  Arnas Bakavicius; Kristina Daniunaite; Kristina Zukauskaite; Marija Barisiene; Sonata Jarmalaite; Feliksas Jankevicius
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 6.551

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.