Literature DB >> 16360458

Is intraoperative frozen section analysis an efficient way to reduce positive surgical margins?

Toshiki Tsuboi1, Makoto Ohori, Kentaro Kuroiwa, Victor E Reuter, Michael W Kattan, James A Eastham, Peter T Scardino.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16360458     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  11 in total

Review 1.  Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

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

Review 2.  Value of frozen section biopsies during radical prostatectomy: significance of the histological results.

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

3.  Incidence and location of positive surgical margins following open, pure laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its relation with neurovascular preservation: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  W Villamil; N Billordo Peres; P Martinez; C Giudice; J Liyo; P García Marchiñena; A Jurado; O Damia
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-02-01

4.  Prostate Cancer Detection Using Composite Impedance Metric.

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

5.  Real-time, near-infrared fluorescence imaging with an optimized dye/light source/camera combination for surgical guidance of prostate cancer.

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

6.  The use of early postoperative prostate-specific antigen to stratify risk in patients with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stepan Vesely; Ladislav Jarolim; Katerina Duskova; Marek Schmidt; Pavel Dusek; Marko Babjuk
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 2.264

7.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and frozen-section analysis efficiently predict upgrading, upstaging, and extraprostatic extension in patients undergoing nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

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

8.  Automated gigapixel circumferential surface microscopy of the prostate.

Authors:  Samuel Luethy; David B Tulman; J Quincy Brown
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Intraoperative assessment and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens to guide nerve-sparing surgery in prostate cancer patients (NeuroSAFE).

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

10.  Gigapixel surface imaging of radical prostatectomy specimens for comprehensive detection of cancer-positive surgical margins using structured illumination microscopy.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.