Digital versus light microscopy assessment of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy

被引:0
作者
Metka Volavšek
Ana Blanca
Rodolfo Montironi
Liang Cheng
Maria R. Raspollini
Nuno Vau
Jorge Fonseca
Francesco Pierconti
Antonio Lopez-Beltran
机构
[1] University of Ljubljana,Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine
[2] Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba,Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, School of Medicine
[3] Spain,Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine
[4] Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona),Department of Urology, School of Medicine
[5] United Hospitals,Histopathology and Molecular Diagnostics
[6] Indiana University,Division of Anatomic Pathology and Histology
[7] Indiana University,undefined
[8] University Hospital Careggi,undefined
[9] Urologic Oncology,undefined
[10] Champalimaud Clinical Center,undefined
[11] Urology Clinic,undefined
[12] Champalimaud Clinical Center,undefined
[13] Catholic University of the Sacred Heart,undefined
[14] “Agostino Gemelli” School of Medicine,undefined
[15] Department of Pathology,undefined
[16] Unit of Anatomical Pathology,undefined
[17] Department of Surgery,undefined
[18] Faculty of Medicine,undefined
[19] Champalimaud Clinical Center,undefined
来源
Virchows Archiv | 2018年 / 472卷
关键词
Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Surgical margin status; Digital microscopy; Digital pathology; Biochemical recurrence;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Positive surgical margin (PSM) extension reported as focal or non-focal/extensive is an important pathologic prognostic parameter after radical prostatectomy. Likewise, there is limited or no agreement on how to measure and what the best cut-off points to be used in practice are. We hypothesized that digital microscopy (DM) would potentially provide a more objective way to measure PSM and better define its clinical significance. To further our knowledge, we have evaluated PSM status in 107 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies using digital and conventional light microscopy (LM). DM evaluation detected three additional PSM cases, but no differences were seen (LM vs DM; p = 0.220). Mean linear measurement correlated to biochemical recurrence (BR) (LM, p = 0.002; DM, p = 0.001). ROC analysis identified a cut-off point to assess linear measurement by LM (3.5 mm) or DM (3.2 mm), but only digital measurement was significant for BR-free survival. Our study also evaluated a cut-off ≤ 3 mm that was associated to BR using LM (p = 0.023) or DM (p = 0.001). Finally, the number of paraffin blocks bearing PSM correlated with BR (p < 0.001) status with either LM or DM. In conclusion, DM produces similar data than LM but shows more accurate measurements. Reporting of PSM with score of ≤ 3 vs. > 3 mm linear extent using LM (3.2 mm if digital microscopy is applied) might represent an important prognostic feature after radical prostatectomy. Alternatively, reporting the number of blocks with PSM 1 vs. 2 or more might also provide important prognostic data in practice.
引用
收藏
页码:451 / 460
页数:9
相关论文
共 157 条
  • [1] Têtu B(2014)Canadian licensure for the use of digital pathology for routine diagnoses one more step toward a new era of pathology practice without borders Arch Pathol Lab Med 138 302-304
  • [2] Evans A(2017)Implementation of whole slide imaging for clinical purposes issues to consider from the perspective of early adopters Arch Pathol Lab Med 141 944-959
  • [3] Evans AJ(2013)Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology. Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center Arch Pathol Lab Med 137 1710-1722
  • [4] Salama ME(2017)The diagnostic concordance of whole slide imaging and light microscopy. A systematic review Arch Pathol Lab Med 141 151-161
  • [5] Henricks WH(2011)Consenus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins Modern Pathol 24 48-57
  • [6] Pantanowitz L(2013)Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system BJU Int 111 753-760
  • [7] Pantanowitz L(2016)The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system Am J Surg Pathol 40 244-252
  • [8] Sinard JH(2017)Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 41 e1-e7
  • [9] Henricks WH(2007)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 J Urol 177 540-545
  • [10] Fatheree LA(2008)Predictive significance of surgical margin status after prostatectomy for prostate cancer during PSA era Urology 72 1203-1207