Literature DB >> 20834234

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling.

Hemamali Samaratunga1, Rodolfo Montironi, Lawrence True, Jonathan I Epstein, David F Griffiths, Peter A Humphrey, Theo van der Kwast, Thomas M Wheeler, John R Srigley, Brett Delahunt, Lars Egevad.   

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 the handling and processing of radical prostatectomy specimens were coordinated by working group 1. Most uropathologists followed similar procedures for fixation of radical prostatectomy specimens, with 51% of respondents transporting tissue in formalin. There was also consensus that the prostate weight without the seminal vesicles should be recorded. There was consensus that the surface of the prostate should be painted. It was agreed that both the prostate apex and base should be examined by the cone method with sagittal sectioning of the tissue sample. There was consensus that the gland should be fully fixed before sectioning. Both partial and complete embedding of prostates was considered to be acceptable as long as the method of partial embedding is stated. No consensus was determined regarding the necessity of weighing and measuring the length of the seminal vesicles, the preparation of whole mounts rather than standardized blocks and the methodology for sampling of fresh tissue for research purposes, and it was agreed that these should be left to the discretion of the working pathologist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20834234     DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.178

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


  42 in total

Review 1.  [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

2.  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

3.  Maximum tumor diameter adjusted to the risk profile predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Georg Müller; Malte Rieken; Gernot Bonkat; Joel Roman Gsponer; Tatjana Vlajnic; Christian Wetterauer; Thomas C Gasser; Stephen F Wyler; Alexander Bachmann; Lukas Bubendorf
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-08-17       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Biobanking of derivatives from radical retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy tissues as part of the prostate cancer biorepository network.

Authors:  Medha Darshan; Qizhi Zheng; Helen L Fedor; Nicolas Wyhs; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Peng Lee; Jonathan Melamed; George J Netto; Bruce J Trock; Angelo M De Marzo; Karen S Sfanos
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 4.104

5.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: should we use quantitative metrics to better characterize focal lesions originating in the peripheral zone?

Authors:  Thibaut Pierre; Francois Cornud; Loïc Colléter; Frédéric Beuvon; Frantz Foissac; Nicolas B Delongchamps; Paul Legmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Clinical significance of pelvic lymph node status in prostate cancer: review of 1690 cases.

Authors:  Livia Maccio; Valeria Barresi; Federica Domati; Eugenio Martorana; Anna Maria Cesinaro; Mario Migaldi; Francesco Iachetta; Antonio Ieni; Luca Reggiani Bonetti
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-02-13       Impact factor: 3.397

7.  Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Christelle Melodelima; Au Hoang Dinh; Flavie Bratan; Gaele Pagnoux; Thomas Sanzalone; Sébastien Crouzet; Marc Colombel; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Rémi Souchon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Next-gen tissue: preservation of molecular and morphological fidelity in prostate tissue.

Authors:  Marc Gillard; Westin R Tom; Tatjana Antic; Gladell P Paner; Mark W Lingen; David J VanderWeele
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.060

9.  Gleason Misclassification Rate Is Independent of Number of Biopsy Cores in Systematic Biopsy.

Authors:  Liza Quintana; Ashley Ward; Sean J Gerrin; Elizabeth M Genega; Seymour Rosen; Martin G Sanda; Andrew A Wagner; Peter Chang; William C DeWolf; Huihui Ye
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Quantification of median lobe protrusion and its impact on the base surgical margin status during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Chang Wook Jeong; Sangchul Lee; Jong Jin Oh; Byung Ki Lee; Jung Keun Lee; Seong Jin Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Gheeyoung Choe; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.