Literature DB >> 24837012

Surgeons' preferences and practice patterns regarding intraoperative frozen section during partial nephrectomy.

Abhinav Sidana1, James F Donovan2, Krishnanath Gaitonde2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Intraoperative frozen section (FS) evaluation for tumor margin during partial nephrectomy (PN) is a matter of controversy in urologic oncology. We evaluated the preferences and practice patterns of urologists regarding intraoperative FS during PN.
METHODS: A 17-item questionnaire was designed to collect information on surgeons' preferences and practice patterns regarding FS during PN. The survey was sent to the members of the Society of Urologic Oncology and Endourological Society.
RESULTS: A total of 197 responses were received. Overall, 69% and 58% of respondents chose to obtain FS (always or sometimes) during open PN (OPN) and laparoscopic PN (LPN), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the surgeons' preferences during OPN and LPN. Younger surgeons are less likely to obtain FS during OPN. For surgeons who did not routinely obtain FS, "confidence about complete resection" was the most common reason (79%), followed by "no change in management with positive margins" (35%). Most surgeons (75%) believed the margins to be negative, if surgical margin was free of tumor microscopically by a single cell layer. Older surgeons considered negative margins to be free of tumor microscopically by ≥5 mm. Overall, 54% and 42% of respondents would repeat FS for positive microscopic margins during OPN and LPN, respectively. Of the respondents, 95% would not recommend additional treatment for positive margins on final pathology.
CONCLUSION: Despite recent literature pointing to low clinical utility of FS, most surgeons still obtain FS during PN. Older surgeons tend to obtain FS more often. Fellowship training and practice type do not appear to influence preferences and practice patterns in regard to FS.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Frozen section; Partial nephrectomy; Renal cell cancer; Surgical margins

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24837012     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.02.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  5 in total

Review 1.  Surgical Margins in Nephron-Sparing Surgery for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Dean D Laganosky; Christopher P Filson; Viraj A Master
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Current beliefs and practice patterns among urologists regarding prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-targeted biopsy.

Authors:  Akhil Muthigi; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Michael Kongnyuy; Mahir Maruf; Subin Valayil; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Cryosurgery, an alternative treatment option for organ-confined prostate cancer: current beliefs and practice patterns of urologists.

Authors:  Michael Kongnyuy; Daniel M Halpern; Kaitlin E Kosinski; Aaron E Katz
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Investigation of confocal microscopy for differentiation of renal cell carcinoma versus benign tissue. Can an optical biopsy be performed?

Authors:  Michael C Phung; Andrew R Rouse; Jayce Pangilinan; Robert C Bell; Erika R Bracamonte; Sharfuddeen Mashi; Arthur F Gmitro; Benjamin R Lee
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2019-12-24

Review 5.  Current strategies to diagnose and manage positive surgical margins and local recurrence after partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Umberto Carbonara; Daniele Amparore; Cosimo Gentile; Riccardo Bertolo; Selcuk Erdem; Alexandre Ingels; Michele Marchioni; Constantijn H J Muselaers; Onder Kara; Laura Marandino; Nicola Pavan; Eduard Roussel; Angela Pecoraro; Fabio Crocerossa; Giuseppe Torre; Riccardo Campi; Pasquale Ditonno
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2022-06-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.