Literature DB >> 8135177

Sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. How much is adequate?

M B Cohen1, M S Soloway, W M Murphy.   

Abstract

Prostate glands from 52 patients with clinical stage B carcinoma were examined using two sampling techniques. After fixation and conization of the apical portions, each gland was serially sectioned with sections mounted whole on oversized glass slides and examined for pathologic features of prognostic importance. A second examination was subsequently conducted on the same tissue using only alternate sections. No differences in tumor type, grade, Gleason score, multiplicity, or capsular penetration were detected in 75% of cases. The discrepancies that did occur were most often minor variations in multiplicity and Gleason score. Of the 20 glands with capsular penetration observed with the serial sectioning method, 17 (85%) were detected using alternate sectioning. The surgical margin was involved in two of the three invasive foci that would have been missed. Although the topography is better displayed, the authors' examinations indicated no significant advantage to whole mount sections compared with sections mounted on standard-sized glass slides. Considering the most effective use of resources, as well as the current modalities available for patient monitoring, the results support the use of an alternate sectioning method for pathologic examination of specimens removed for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8135177     DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/101.3.250

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0002-9173            Impact factor:   2.493


  6 in total

Review 1.  Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: therapeutic and prognostic importance.

Authors:  D G Bostwick; R Montironi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Stage pT0 after radical prostatectomy: a diagnostic dilemma.

Authors:  Stephanie Schirrmacher; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Lars-Christian Horn; Hans Nenning; Jörg Rassler; Bhavan Rai; Minh Do; Evangelos Liatsikos; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-23       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Next-generation prostate cancer biobanking: toward a processing protocol amenable for the International Cancer Genome Consortium.

Authors:  Raquel Esgueva; Kyung Park; Robert Kim; Naoki Kitabayashi; Christopher E Barbieri; Philip J Dorsey; Cyril Abraham; Samprit Banerjee; Robert A Leung; Ashutosh K Tewari; Stéphane Terry; Maria M Shevchuk; David S Rickman; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Diagn Mol Pathol       Date:  2012-06

4.  Partial versus complete prostatectomy specimen sampling: prospective non-inferiority study for pT3a tumours and surgical margin involvement.

Authors:  Eelco R P Collette; Michael A den Bakker; Sjoerd O Klaver; André N Vis; Mike Kliffen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total embedding with large-format histology.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Antonio Lopez Beltran; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Liang Cheng; Marina Scarpelli
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2012-07-10

Review 6.  Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.

Authors:  Jennifer Gordetsky; Jonathan Epstein
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.644

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.