Literature DB >> 32355514

Comparison of two commonly used methods in measurement of cancer volume in prostate biopsy.

Viharkumar Patel1, Samuel Hubbard1, Wei Huang1.   

Abstract

Currently, cancer volume in prostate biopsy samples is commonly calculated as linear length of carcinoma divided by total core length and reported as percentage involvement. The measurement of the linear length of carcinoma can be problematic particularly when there are two or more separate foci of carcinoma in a single core. There are two most methods commonly used by practicing pathologists. One method is to measure the exact linear extent of each discrete carcinoma foci in millimeters and then add up the linear length (the exact method, E method). The other method is to measure the core length encompassing all carcinoma foci including the intervening benign prostate tissue (glands and/or stroma) (the scattered method, S method). In this study, we used digital pathology to compare the site-specific and overall cancer volumes measured with the E and S methods and analyzed their correlation with the cancer volume in the corresponding prostatectomy specimens. Our results showed that prostate-cancer volumes estimated with both E and S methods on biopsy samples positively correlate with cancer volume at radical prostatectomy. However, the cancer volumes measured with both E and S methods in the majority of biopsy samples were significantly larger than that in prostatectomy (P<0.001). The E method more closely predicts the cancer volume compared to the S method. The overall cancer volume is better than site-specific cancer volume at biopsy in predicting cancer volume at prostatectomy. IJCEP
Copyright © 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Exact method; cancer volume; prostate biopsy; scattered method

Year:  2020        PMID: 32355514      PMCID: PMC7191135     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol        ISSN: 1936-2625


  30 in total

1.  Importance of Reporting the Gleason Score at the Positive Surgical Margin Site: Analysis of 4,082 Consecutive Radical Prostatectomy Cases.

Authors:  Max Kates; Nikolai A Sopko; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Comparison of percentage of total prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer to percentage of cores with cancer for predicting PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; William J Aronson; George S Csathy; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; Frederick Dorey; Martha K Terris
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume.

Authors:  Theo H van der Kwast; Mahul B Amin; Athanase Billis; Jonathan I Epstein; David Griffiths; Peter A Humphrey; Rodolfo Montironi; Thomas M Wheeler; John R Srigley; Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in core needle biopsy and transurethral resection and enucleation specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

Authors:  Lars Egevad; 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; James G Kench
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 5.306

5.  Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies.

Authors:  Y Goto; M Ohori; A Arakawa; M W Kattan; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Does discontinuous involvement of a prostatic needle biopsy core by adenocarcinoma correlate with a large tumor focus at radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Javier A Arias-Stella; Kavita R Varma; Diego Montoya-Cerrillo; Nilesh S Gupta; Sean R Williamson
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 7.  Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-07-23       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Discontinuous foci of cancer in a single core of prostatic biopsy: when it occurs and performance of quantification methods in a private-practice setting.

Authors:  Luciana Schultz; Carlos E Maluf; Rogério C da Silva; Rodrigo de H Falashi; Matheus V da Costa; Maria Ines O Schultz
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup.

Authors:  J I Epstein; M Carmichael; A W Partin; P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  1 in total

1.  Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Platform for Prostate Cancer Grading and Quantification.

Authors:  Wei Huang; Ramandeep Randhawa; Parag Jain; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Rong Hu; Samuel Hubbard; Jens Eickhoff; Hirak Basu; Rajat Roy
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.