OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and efficiency of frozen section analysis to detect positive surgical margins (+SMs) during radical prostatectomy. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 760 patients treated with radical prostatectomy from 1998 to 2002, areas suspicious for +SMs on the surface of the removed prostate were examined by frozen section analysis. In a subset of 520 patients, the surgeon's level of suspicion for +SMs was scored and recorded during radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall, 259 patients underwent frozen section examination. Of these, 55 patients (21%) had +SMs on permanent section examination compared with 50 (10%) of 501 patients with no frozen section analysis (P <0.005). Cancer was present in 23 (8.9%) frozen section specimens, all of which were confirmed on permanent section analysis. Frozen section examination missed 32 +SMs in 236 patients with negative frozen section results. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of frozen section analysis to identify +SMs was 42%, 100%, 100%, and 86%, respectively. However, the sensitivity of frozen section analysis was much lower (23 of 105, 22%) when analyzed for the entire population, including those who did not have frozen section analysis. Among the subset of 520 patients with the level of suspicion recorded, 79 had a +SM on permanent section examination. However, 51 (64%) of these were in patients with no suspicious area in the prostatectomy specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Although the positive predictive value of frozen section analysis for +SMs is high, the sensitivity is too low to expect that a policy of routine frozen section analysis of suspicious areas will reduce the rate of +SMs substantially.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and efficiency of frozen section analysis to detect positive surgical margins (+SMs) during radical prostatectomy. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 760 patients treated with radical prostatectomy from 1998 to 2002, areas suspicious for +SMs on the surface of the removed prostate were examined by frozen section analysis. In a subset of 520 patients, the surgeon's level of suspicion for +SMs was scored and recorded during radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall, 259 patients underwent frozen section examination. Of these, 55 patients (21%) had +SMs on permanent section examination compared with 50 (10%) of 501 patients with no frozen section analysis (P <0.005). Cancer was present in 23 (8.9%) frozen section specimens, all of which were confirmed on permanent section analysis. Frozen section examination missed 32 +SMs in 236 patients with negative frozen section results. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of frozen section analysis to identify +SMs was 42%, 100%, 100%, and 86%, respectively. However, the sensitivity of frozen section analysis was much lower (23 of 105, 22%) when analyzed for the entire population, including those who did not have frozen section analysis. Among the subset of 520 patients with the level of suspicion recorded, 79 had a +SM on permanent section examination. However, 51 (64%) of these were in patients with no suspicious area in the prostatectomy specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Although the positive predictive value of frozen section analysis for +SMs is high, the sensitivity is too low to expect that a policy of routine frozen section analysis of suspicious areas will reduce the rate of +SMs substantially.
Authors: T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Robert Rabenalt; Sunjay Jain; Minh Do; Evangelos Liatsikos; Roman Ganzer; Lars-Christian Horn; Martin Burchardt; Fernando Jiménez-Cruz; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Shadab Khan; Aditya Mahara; Elias S Hyams; Alan R Schned; Ryan J Halter Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Brian P Neuman; John B Eifler; Mark Castanares; Wasim H Chowdhury; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Rong Ma; Amarnath Mukherjee; Shawn E Lupold; Martin G Pomper; Ronald Rodriguez Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roberto Bianchi; Gabriele Cozzi; Giuseppe Petralia; Sarah Alessi; Giuseppe Renne; Danilo Bottero; Antonio Brescia; Antonio Cioffi; Giovanni Cordima; Matteo Ferro; Deliu Victor Matei; Federica Mazzoleni; Gennaro Musi; Francesco Alessandro Mistretta; Alessandro Serino; Valeria Maria Lucia Tringali; Ioan Coman; Ottavio De Cobelli Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Margaretha A van der Slot; Michael A den Bakker; Sjoerd Klaver; Mike Kliffen; Martijn B Busstra; John B W Rietbergen; Melanie Gan; Karen E Hamoen; Leo M Budel; Natascha N T Goemaere; Chris H Bangma; Jozien Helleman; Monique J Roobol; Geert J L H van Leenders Journal: Histopathology Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Mei Wang; David B Tulman; Andrew B Sholl; Hillary Z Kimbrell; Sree H Mandava; Katherine N Elfer; Samuel Luethy; Michael M Maddox; Weil Lai; Benjamin R Lee; J Quincy Brown Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379