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
  • [21] Treanor D(2011)Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies Hum Pathol 42 68-74
  • [22] Tan PH(2005)The influence of extent of surgical margin positivity on prostate specific antigen recurrence J Clin Pathol 58 1028-1032
  • [23] Cheng L(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [24] Srigley JR(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [25] Griffiths D(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [26] Humphrey PA(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [27] van der Kwast TH(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [28] Montironi R(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [29] Wheeler TM(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined
  • [30] Delahunt B(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined