Literature DB >> 20729812

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins.

Puay Hoon Tan1, Liang Cheng, John R Srigley, David Griffiths, Peter A Humphrey, Theodore H van der Kwast, Rodolfo Montironi, Thomas M Wheeler, Brett Delahunt, Lars Egevad, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the 'capsular' margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20729812     DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  41 in total

Review 1.  [Organ-limited prostate cancer with positive resection margins. Importance of adjuvant radiation therapy].

Authors:  D Porres; D Pfister; B Brehmer; A Heidenreich
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  [Diagnostics of radical prostatectomy specimens. Results of the 2009 consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology].

Authors:  G Kristiansen; J R Srigley; B Delahunt; L Egevad
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: What should we care about?

Authors:  Caroline Pettenati; Yann Neuzillet; Camelia Radulescu; Jean-Marie Hervé; Vincent Molinié; Thierry Lebret
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  [Oncological and functional results of open intrafascial radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  W Y Khoder; A Buchner; S Siegert; C G Stief; B Schlenker
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Long-term oncological outcomes of apical positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort.

Authors:  H Wadhwa; M K Terris; W J Aronson; C J Kane; C L Amling; M R Cooperberg; S J Freedland; M R Abern
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 5.554

6.  Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Sarah J Drouin; Julie Rode; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Re-evaluating the concept of "dominant/index tumor nodule" in multifocal prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cheng Cheng Huang; Fang-Ming Deng; Max X Kong; Qinhu Ren; Jonathan Melamed; Ming Zhou
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Positive surgical margin rates during the robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy learning curve of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Authors:  Anthony F Adili; Julia Di Giovanni; Emma Kolesar; Nathan C Wong; Jen Hoogenes; Shawn Dason; Bobby Shayegan
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  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

10.  Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence.

Authors:  Jason P Izard; Lawrence D True; Philip May; William J Ellis; Paul H Lange; Bruce Dalkin; Daniel W Lin; Rodney A Schmidt; Jonathan L Wright
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 6.394

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.