Literature DB >> 31588959

Digital versus light microscopy assessment of extraprostatic extension in radical prostatectomy samples.

Metka Volavšek1, Vanessa Henriques2, Ana Blanca3, Rodolfo Montironi4, Liang Cheng5, Maria R Raspollini6, Alessia Cimadamore4, Nuno Vau7, Francesco Pierconti8, Antonio Lopez-Beltran9,10.   

Abstract

Focal or non-focal/extensive extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma is an important pathologic prognostic parameter to be reported after radical prostatectomy. Currently, there is no agreement on how to measure and what are the best cutoff points to be used in practice. We hypothesized that digital microscopy would potentially provide more objective measurements of extraprostatic extension, thus better defining its clinical significance. To further our knowledge on digital prostate pathology, we evaluated the status of extraprostatic extension in 107 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy samples, using digital and conventional light microscopy. Mean linear and radial measurements of extraprostatic extension by digital microscopy significantly correlated to pT status (p = 0.022 and p = 0.050, respectively) but only radial measurements correlated to biochemical recurrence (p = 0.042) and grade groups (p = 0.022). None of the measurements, whether conventional or digital, were associated with lymph node status. Receiving operating characteristic analysis showed a potential cutoff point to assess linear measurements by conventional (< vs. > 24.21 mm) or digital microscopy (< vs. > 15 mm) or by radial measurement (< vs. > 1.6 mm). Finally, we observed an association between the number of paraffin blocks bearing EPE with pT (p = 0.041) status (digital microscopy), and linear measurements by conventional (p = 0.044) or digital microscopy (p = 0.045) with lymph node status. Reporting EPE measurements by digital microscopy, both linear and radial, and the number of paraffin blocks with EPE, might provide additional prognostic features after radical prostatectomy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biochemical recurrence; Digital microscopy; Digital pathology; Extraprostatic extension; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31588959     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-019-02666-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  31 in total

Review 1.  Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Michael S Cookson; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine Tangen; J Brantley Thrasher; Ian Thompson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Andrew J Evans; Pauline C Henry; Theodorus H Van der Kwast; Douglas C Tkachuk; Kemp Watson; Gina A Lockwood; Neil E Fleshner; Carol Cheung; Eric C Belanger; Mahul B Amin; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; David G Bostwick; Lars Egevad; Jonathan I Epstein; David J Grignon; Edward C Jones; Rodolfo Montironi; Madeleine Moussa; Joan M Sweet; Kiril Trpkov; Thomas M Wheeler; John R Srigley
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Prognostic significance of histopathological features of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniela Danneman; Fredrik Wiklund; Nils Peter Wiklund; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 5.087

4.  The clinical significance of in-depth pathological assessment of extraprostatic extension and margin status in radical prostatectomies for prostate cancer.

Authors:  S M Chan; F J Garcia; J L Chin; M Moussa; M Y Gabril
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 5.  The Diagnostic Concordance of Whole Slide Imaging and Light Microscopy: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Edward Goacher; Rebecca Randell; Bethany Williams; Darren Treanor
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Extraprostatic Extension Is Extremely Rare for Contemporary Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Blake B Anderson; Daniel T Oberlin; Aria A Razmaria; Bonnie Choy; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav; Joshua J Meeks; Ximing J Yang; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Prognostic significance and biopsy characteristics of prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion on radical prostatectomy: a nationwide population-based study.

Authors:  Anna Kristiansen; Linda Drevin; Brett Delahunt; Hemamali Samaratunga; David Robinson; Ingela Franck Lissbrant; Pär Stattin; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2017-10-14       Impact factor: 5.306

Review 8.  Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting.

Authors:  James G Kench; Meagan Judge; Brett Delahunt; Peter A Humphrey; Glen Kristiansen; Jon Oxley; Krishan Rasiah; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Kiril Trpkov; Murali Varma; Thomas M Wheeler; Ming Zhou; John R Srigley; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Extent of extracapsular extension in localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  C Sohayda; P A Kupelian; H S Levin; E A Klein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  The relationship between the extent of extraprostatic extension and survival following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Byong Chang Jeong; Heather J Chalfin; Seung Bae Lee; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin; Elizabeth Humphreys; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  1 in total

1.  Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt; Hemamali Samaratunga; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Henrik Olsson; Peter Ström; Cecilia Lindskog; Tomi Häkkinen; Kimmo Kartasalo; Martin Eklund; Pekka Ruusuvuori
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 4.064

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.