Digital versus light microscopy assessment of extraprostatic extension in radical prostatectomy samples

被引:0
作者
Metka Volavšek
Vanessa Henriques
Ana Blanca
Rodolfo Montironi
Liang Cheng
Maria R. Raspollini
Alessia Cimadamore
Nuno Vau
Francesco Pierconti
Antonio Lopez-Beltran
机构
[1] University of Ljubljana,Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine
[2] Champalimaud Clinical Center,Pathology Service
[3] Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba,Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, School of Medicine
[4] Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona),Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Urology, School of Medicine
[5] United Hospitals,Histopathology and Molecular Diagnostics
[6] Indiana University,Urologic Oncology
[7] University Hospital Careggi,Division of Anatomic Pathology and Histology
[8] Champalimaud Clinical Center,Department of Pathology, Unit of Anatomical Pathology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cordoba
[9] Catholic University of the Sacred Heart,undefined
[10] “Agostino Gemelli” School of Medicine,undefined
[11] Spain and Champalimaud Clinical Center,undefined
来源
Virchows Archiv | 2019年 / 475卷
关键词
Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Extraprostatic extension; Digital microscopy; Digital pathology; Biochemical recurrence;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Focal or non-focal/extensive extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma is an important pathologic prognostic parameter to be reported after radical prostatectomy. Currently, there is no agreement on how to measure and what are the best cutoff points to be used in practice. We hypothesized that digital microscopy would potentially provide more objective measurements of extraprostatic extension, thus better defining its clinical significance. To further our knowledge on digital prostate pathology, we evaluated the status of extraprostatic extension in 107 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy samples, using digital and conventional light microscopy. Mean linear and radial measurements of extraprostatic extension by digital microscopy significantly correlated to pT status (p = 0.022 and p = 0.050, respectively) but only radial measurements correlated to biochemical recurrence (p = 0.042) and grade groups (p = 0.022). None of the measurements, whether conventional or digital, were associated with lymph node status. Receiving operating characteristic analysis showed a potential cutoff point to assess linear measurements by conventional (< vs. > 24.21 mm) or digital microscopy (< vs. > 15 mm) or by radial measurement (< vs. > 1.6 mm). Finally, we observed an association between the number of paraffin blocks bearing EPE with pT (p = 0.041) status (digital microscopy), and linear measurements by conventional (p = 0.044) or digital microscopy (p = 0.045) with lymph node status. Reporting EPE measurements by digital microscopy, both linear and radial, and the number of paraffin blocks with EPE, might provide additional prognostic features after radical prostatectomy.
引用
收藏
页码:735 / 744
页数:9
相关论文
共 245 条
[1]  
Volavšek M(2018)Digital versus light microscopy assessment of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy Virchows Arch 472 451-460
[2]  
Blanca A(2019)Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the international collaboration on cancer reporting Virchows Arch 475 263-277
[3]  
Montironi R(1999)Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma Cancer 86 1775-1782
[4]  
Cheng L(2011)The clinical significance of in-depth pathological assessment of extraprostatic extension and margin status in radical prostatectomies for prostate cancer Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14 307-312
[5]  
Raspollini MR(1999)The radial distance of extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma. Implications for prostate brachytheraphy Cancer 85 2630-2637
[6]  
Vau N(1993)Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term follow up J Urol 150 135-141
[7]  
Fonseca J(1998)Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer Hum Pathol 29 856-862
[8]  
Pierconti F(2015)The relationship between the extent of extraprostatic extension and survival following radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 67 342-346
[9]  
Lopez-Beltran A(2011)International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease Mod Pathol 24 26-38
[10]  
Kench JG(2012)Significance of prostatic capsular status in radical prostatectomy Urol Sci 23 15-17