Alessia Cimadamore1, Liang Cheng2, Antonio Lopez-Beltran3, Roberta Mazzucchelli1, Roberta Lucianò4, Marina Scarpelli1, Francesco Montorsi5, Rodolfo Montironi6. 1. Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. 4. Pathological Anatomy Service, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 5. Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 6. Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy. Electronic address: r.montironi@univpm.it.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Whole-mount histopathology, that is, large format histology or whole-mount sectioning, refers to the histopathological examination of tissue sections from specimens processed with large tissue cassette. In some institutions, it is applied routinely to specimens with genitourinary cancers. OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the application of the large format histology to the morphological examination of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive PubMed search was performed up to May 2020, using the keywords "prostate carcinoma," "radical prostatectomy specimens," "whole-mount histopathology," "whole mount sectioning," "large format histology," "macrosectioning," "diagnostic criteria," and "prognosis." The search, supplemented with a hand search, was restricted to articles published in the English language. No limitations were placed on the publication year. References in relevant articles were also reviewed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Even though the whole-mount sections of RPs appear not to be superior to regular sections in detecting adverse pathological features, their use has the advantage of displaying the architecture of the prostate gland and identifying and locating tumor nodule(s) more clearly, with particular reference to the index tumor. Further, it is easier to compare the pathological features with clinical findings derived, for instance, from digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, surgical operation, and prostate biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists, radiologists, and oncologists are updated about the step forward made by pathologists when diagnostic and prognostic information is derived from an approach that closely resembles that used by the clinicians when dealing with imaging findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Adoption of the whole-mount histopathology adds clinical value in correlation with clinical/imaging findings of radical prostatectomy specimens.
CONTEXT: Whole-mount histopathology, that is, large format histology or whole-mount sectioning, refers to the histopathological examination of tissue sections from specimens processed with large tissue cassette. In some institutions, it is applied routinely to specimens with genitourinary cancers. OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the application of the large format histology to the morphological examination of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive PubMed search was performed up to May 2020, using the keywords "prostate carcinoma," "radical prostatectomy specimens," "whole-mount histopathology," "whole mount sectioning," "large format histology," "macrosectioning," "diagnostic criteria," and "prognosis." The search, supplemented with a hand search, was restricted to articles published in the English language. No limitations were placed on the publication year. References in relevant articles were also reviewed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Even though the whole-mount sections of RPs appear not to be superior to regular sections in detecting adverse pathological features, their use has the advantage of displaying the architecture of the prostate gland and identifying and locating tumor nodule(s) more clearly, with particular reference to the index tumor. Further, it is easier to compare the pathological features with clinical findings derived, for instance, from digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, surgical operation, and prostate biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists, radiologists, and oncologists are updated about the step forward made by pathologists when diagnostic and prognostic information is derived from an approach that closely resembles that used by the clinicians when dealing with imaging findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Adoption of the whole-mount histopathology adds clinical value in correlation with clinical/imaging findings of radical prostatectomy specimens.