Partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: Detection of positive margins and extraprostatic extension

Viacheslav Iremashvili, Soum D. Lokeshwar, Mark S. Soloway, Lisét Pelaez, Saleem A. Umar, Murugesan Manoharan, Merce Jorda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Currently there is no global agreement as to how extensively a radical prostatectomy specimen should be sectioned and histologically examined. We analyzed the ability of different methods of partial sampling in detecting positive margin (PM) and extraprostatic extension (EPE)-2 pathologic features of prostate cancer that are most easily missed by partial sampling of the prostate. Radical prostatectomy specimens from 617 patients treated with open radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2011 were analyzed. Examination of the entirely submitted prostate detected only PM in 370 (60%), only EPE in 100 (16%), and both in 147 (24%) specimens. We determined whether these pathologic features would have been diagnosed had the examination of the specimen been limited only to alternate sections (method 1), alternate sections representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects (method 2), and every section representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects, supplemented by the remaining ipsilateral anterior sections if a sizeable tumor is seen (method 3). Methods 1 and 2 missed 13% and 21% of PMs and 28% and 47% of EPEs, respectively. Method 3 demonstrated better results missing only 5% of PMs and 7% of EPEs. Partial sampling techniques missed slightly more PMs and EPEs in patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, although even in high-risk cases none of the methods detected all of the studied aggressive pathologic features.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)219-225
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2013

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • extraprostatic extension
  • partial embedding
  • positive margin
  • prostate cancer
  • radical prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens : Detection of positive margins and extraprostatic extension. / Iremashvili, Viacheslav; Lokeshwar, Soum D.; Soloway, Mark S.; Pelaez, Lisét; Umar, Saleem A.; Manoharan, Murugesan; Jorda, Merce.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 01.02.2013, p. 219-225.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iremashvili, Viacheslav ; Lokeshwar, Soum D. ; Soloway, Mark S. ; Pelaez, Lisét ; Umar, Saleem A. ; Manoharan, Murugesan ; Jorda, Merce. / Partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens : Detection of positive margins and extraprostatic extension. In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2013 ; Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 219-225.
@article{b79747a4f3504ad086f16d7fdbc32937,
title = "Partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: Detection of positive margins and extraprostatic extension",
abstract = "Currently there is no global agreement as to how extensively a radical prostatectomy specimen should be sectioned and histologically examined. We analyzed the ability of different methods of partial sampling in detecting positive margin (PM) and extraprostatic extension (EPE)-2 pathologic features of prostate cancer that are most easily missed by partial sampling of the prostate. Radical prostatectomy specimens from 617 patients treated with open radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2011 were analyzed. Examination of the entirely submitted prostate detected only PM in 370 (60{\%}), only EPE in 100 (16{\%}), and both in 147 (24{\%}) specimens. We determined whether these pathologic features would have been diagnosed had the examination of the specimen been limited only to alternate sections (method 1), alternate sections representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects (method 2), and every section representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects, supplemented by the remaining ipsilateral anterior sections if a sizeable tumor is seen (method 3). Methods 1 and 2 missed 13{\%} and 21{\%} of PMs and 28{\%} and 47{\%} of EPEs, respectively. Method 3 demonstrated better results missing only 5{\%} of PMs and 7{\%} of EPEs. Partial sampling techniques missed slightly more PMs and EPEs in patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, although even in high-risk cases none of the methods detected all of the studied aggressive pathologic features.",
keywords = "extraprostatic extension, partial embedding, positive margin, prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy",
author = "Viacheslav Iremashvili and Lokeshwar, {Soum D.} and Soloway, {Mark S.} and Lis{\'e}t Pelaez and Umar, {Saleem A.} and Murugesan Manoharan and Merce Jorda",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PAS.0b013e318268ccc1",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "219--225",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens

T2 - Detection of positive margins and extraprostatic extension

AU - Iremashvili, Viacheslav

AU - Lokeshwar, Soum D.

AU - Soloway, Mark S.

AU - Pelaez, Lisét

AU - Umar, Saleem A.

AU - Manoharan, Murugesan

AU - Jorda, Merce

PY - 2013/2/1

Y1 - 2013/2/1

N2 - Currently there is no global agreement as to how extensively a radical prostatectomy specimen should be sectioned and histologically examined. We analyzed the ability of different methods of partial sampling in detecting positive margin (PM) and extraprostatic extension (EPE)-2 pathologic features of prostate cancer that are most easily missed by partial sampling of the prostate. Radical prostatectomy specimens from 617 patients treated with open radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2011 were analyzed. Examination of the entirely submitted prostate detected only PM in 370 (60%), only EPE in 100 (16%), and both in 147 (24%) specimens. We determined whether these pathologic features would have been diagnosed had the examination of the specimen been limited only to alternate sections (method 1), alternate sections representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects (method 2), and every section representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects, supplemented by the remaining ipsilateral anterior sections if a sizeable tumor is seen (method 3). Methods 1 and 2 missed 13% and 21% of PMs and 28% and 47% of EPEs, respectively. Method 3 demonstrated better results missing only 5% of PMs and 7% of EPEs. Partial sampling techniques missed slightly more PMs and EPEs in patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, although even in high-risk cases none of the methods detected all of the studied aggressive pathologic features.

AB - Currently there is no global agreement as to how extensively a radical prostatectomy specimen should be sectioned and histologically examined. We analyzed the ability of different methods of partial sampling in detecting positive margin (PM) and extraprostatic extension (EPE)-2 pathologic features of prostate cancer that are most easily missed by partial sampling of the prostate. Radical prostatectomy specimens from 617 patients treated with open radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2011 were analyzed. Examination of the entirely submitted prostate detected only PM in 370 (60%), only EPE in 100 (16%), and both in 147 (24%) specimens. We determined whether these pathologic features would have been diagnosed had the examination of the specimen been limited only to alternate sections (method 1), alternate sections representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects (method 2), and every section representing the posterior aspect of the gland in addition to one of the mid-anterior aspects, supplemented by the remaining ipsilateral anterior sections if a sizeable tumor is seen (method 3). Methods 1 and 2 missed 13% and 21% of PMs and 28% and 47% of EPEs, respectively. Method 3 demonstrated better results missing only 5% of PMs and 7% of EPEs. Partial sampling techniques missed slightly more PMs and EPEs in patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, although even in high-risk cases none of the methods detected all of the studied aggressive pathologic features.

KW - extraprostatic extension

KW - partial embedding

KW - positive margin

KW - prostate cancer

KW - radical prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872876797&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872876797&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318268ccc1

DO - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318268ccc1

M3 - Article

C2 - 23095506

AN - SCOPUS:84872876797

VL - 37

SP - 219

EP - 225

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 2

ER -