OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference between the routinely reported pathology records and the results of re-evaluation of the same radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) specimens. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RRP specimens of 114 patients initially reported by a general pathologist for routine purposes were re-examined and re-evaluated blindly with respect to the following parameters: organ confinement; capsular invasion; seminal vesicle invasion; lymph node metastasis; surgical margin positivity; Gleason grade and pathologic stage. Repeat and step sections were performed where necessary. Prostate mapping was done for each patient. RESULTS: A statistically significant discordance between the routine evaluation and the re-evaluation was observed with regard to capsular invasion, organ confinement, Gleason grade and pathologic stage. In addition to pathologic stage, Gleason grade and surgical margin positivity became significant prognostic factors after the re-evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: RRP specimens should be evaluated by an expert prostate pathologist by submitting whole prostate specimens and should include detailed prostate mapping.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference between the routinely reported pathology records and the results of re-evaluation of the same radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) specimens. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RRP specimens of 114 patients initially reported by a general pathologist for routine purposes were re-examined and re-evaluated blindly with respect to the following parameters: organ confinement; capsular invasion; seminal vesicle invasion; lymph node metastasis; surgical margin positivity; Gleason grade and pathologic stage. Repeat and step sections were performed where necessary. Prostate mapping was done for each patient. RESULTS: A statistically significant discordance between the routine evaluation and the re-evaluation was observed with regard to capsular invasion, organ confinement, Gleason grade and pathologic stage. In addition to pathologic stage, Gleason grade and surgical margin positivity became significant prognostic factors after the re-evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: RRP specimens should be evaluated by an expert prostate pathologist by submitting whole prostate specimens and should include detailed prostate mapping.
Authors: Etienne Xavier Keller; Jacqueline Bachofner; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Karim Saba; Ashkan Mortezavi; Basil Kaufmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Peter Wild; Tullio Sulser; Thomas Hermanns; Daniel Eberli; Cédric Poyet Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Theodorus H van der Kwast; Laurence Collette; Hein Van Poppel; Paul Van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi DaPozzo; Jean-François Bosset; Karl H Kurth; Fritz H Schröder; Michel Bolla Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Jacob E Tallman; Vignesh T Packiam; Kristen E Wroblewski; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 3.498