Literature DB >> 20303103

Tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens assessed by digital image analysis software correlates with other prognostic factors.

Justin C Sherwin1, George Mirmilstein, John Pedersen, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Damien Bolton, John Mills.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Digital image analysis software to review histopathology specimens is advancing uropathology by objectivity and reproducibility. Subjective pathologist assessed prostate tumor volume calculations correlate with known prognostic factors at radical prostatectomy. We ascertained whether image analysis software calculations of prostate tumor volume correlate with such prognostic factors, particularly positive surgical margins.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate tumor volume was calculated using digital image analysis software in 851 sequential radical prostatectomy specimens. Results were correlated with clinicopathological data by logistic regression.
RESULTS: Median prostate tumor volume was 2.2 cc (IQR 0.9-3.8). Median peripheral and transition zone tumor volume was 1.9 and 0.6 cc, respectively. Transition zone tumors were noted in 236 specimens (27.8%) and positive surgical margins occurred in 244 (28.7%). Tumors with extensive positive surgical margins had larger image analysis software assessed prostate tumor volume (p = 0.029) and peripheral zone volume (p = 0.007) than those with only focal positive surgical margins. On univariate analysis positive surgical margin tumors were larger and had seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension, perineural invasion and higher preoperative prostate specific antigen than those without positive surgical margins (each p <0.001). A linear relationship existed between image analysis software determined prostate tumor volume, and increasing tumor stage, Gleason score and prostate specific antigen (p for trend <0.001). On multivariate analysis tumor volume and tumor volume as a percent of prostate volume predicted positive surgical margins.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate tumor volume determined objectively by image analysis software correlates with positive surgical margins, as do prognostic variables such as extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, perineural invasion, peripheral zone volume and Gleason score greater than 7. Objective digital image analysis software assessment appears to be a valid form to determine prostate tumor volume at radical prostatectomy. It is a useful adjunct to other histopathological analyses. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20303103     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  10 in total

1.  The pursuit of the "perfect" biomarker in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Tumor volume as a predictor of adverse pathologic features and biochemical recurrence (BCR) in radical prostatectomy specimens: a tale of two methods.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Shady Salem; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Rodney Davis; S Duke Herrell; Yakup Kordan; Roxelyn Baumgartner; Sharon Phillips; Joseph A Smith; Michael S Cookson; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in Turkish patients with localized prostate cancer: results of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Ömer Yılmaz; Ufuk Berber; Sezgin Okçelik; Hasan Soydan; Ferhat Ateş; Kenan Karademir
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-06

4.  The prognostic significance of percentage of tumour involvement according to disease risk group in men treated with radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jong Jin Oh; Sang Cheol Lee; Chang Wook Jeong; Cheol Yong Yoon; Seong Jin Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Yoon Kwan Rho; Gheeyoung Choe; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 3.285

5.  Digital versus light microscopy assessment of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Metka Volavšek; Ana Blanca; Rodolfo Montironi; Liang Cheng; Maria R Raspollini; Nuno Vau; Jorge Fonseca; Francesco Pierconti; Antonio Lopez-Beltran
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Outcome of repeated prostatic biopsy during active surveillance: implications for focal therapy.

Authors:  Ghassan A Barayan; Armen G Aprikian; James Hanley; Wassim Kassouf; Fadi Brimo; Louis R Bégin; Simon Tanguay
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Developing a model for forecasting Gleason score ≥7 in potential prostate cancer patients to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Xiao Li; Yongsheng Pan; Yuan Huang; Jun Wang; Cheng Zhang; Jie Wu; Gong Cheng; Chao Qin; Lixin Hua; Zengjun Wang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  Defining Prostatic Vascular Pedicle Recurrence and the Anatomy of Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Philip Dundee; Marc A Furrer; Niall M Corcoran; Justin Peters; Henry Pan; Zita Ballok; Andrew Ryan; Mario Guerrieri; Anthony J Costello
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-06-11

9.  Loss of SNAI2 in Prostate Cancer Correlates With Clinical Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Authors:  Marek Cmero; Natalie J Kurganovs; Ryan Stuchbery; Patrick McCoy; Corrina Grima; Anne Ngyuen; Ken Chow; Stefano Mangiola; Geoff Macintyre; Nicholas Howard; Michael Kerger; Philip Dundee; Paul Ruljancich; David Clarke; Jeremy Grummet; Justin S Peters; Anthony J Costello; Sam Norden; Andrew Ryan; Phillip Parente; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-06-22

10.  Curated microRNAs in urine and blood fail to validate as predictive biomarkers for high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nikhil Sapre; Matthew K H Hong; Geoff Macintyre; Heather Lewis; Adam Kowalczyk; Anthony J Costello; Niall M Corcoran; Christopher M Hovens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.