Intraoperative margin assessment during radical prostatectomy: is microscopy frozen in time or ready for digital defrost?
NeuroSAFE
confocal laser microscopy
digital imaging
frozen section
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
surgical margins
Journal
Histopathology
ISSN: 1365-2559
Titre abrégé: Histopathology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7704136
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Aug 2024
05 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline:
6
8
2024
pubmed:
6
8
2024
entrez:
6
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) is used with the intention to improve functional and oncological outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). High resource requirements of IFS techniques such as NeuroSAFE may preclude widespread adoption, even if there are benefits to patients. Recent advances in fresh-tissue microscopic digital imaging technologies may offer an attractive alternative, and there is a growing body of evidence regarding these technologies. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the familiar limitations of IFS and compare these to the attractive counterpoints of modern digital imaging technologies such as the speed and ease of image generation, the locality of equipment within (or near) the operating room, the ability to maintain tissue integrity, and digital transfer of images. Confocal laser microscopy (CLM) is the modality most frequently reported in the literature for margin assessment during RP. We discuss several imitations and obstacles to widespread dissemination of digital imaging technologies. Among these, we consider how the 'en-face' margin perspective will challenge urologists and pathologists to understand afresh the meaning of positive margin significance. As a part of this, discussions on how to describe, categorize, react to, and evaluate these technologies are needed to improve patient outcomes. Limitations of this review include its narrative structure and that the evidence base in this field is relatively immature but developing at pace.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Pellegrino F, Falagario UG, Knipper S et al. Assessing the impact of positive surgical margins on mortality in patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy: 20 years' report from the EAU robotic urology section scientific working group. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2023; 7; 888–896.
Dinneen EP, Van Der Slot M, Adasonla K et al. Intraoperative frozen section for margin evaluation during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. Focus 2020; 6; 664–673.
Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C et al. Neurovascular structure‐adjacent frozen‐section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve‐sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62; 333–340.
van der Slot MA, den Bakker MA, Klaver S et al. Intraoperative assessment and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens to guide nerve‐sparing surgery in prostate cancer patients (NeuroSAFE). Histopathology 2020; 77; 539–547.
Dinneen E, Haider A, Grierson J et al. NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: perioperative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2021; 127; 676–686.
van der Slot MA, den Bakker MA, Tan TSC et al. NeuroSAFE in radical prostatectomy increases the rate of nerve‐sparing surgery without affecting oncological outcome. BJU Int. 2022; 130; 628–636.
van der Slot MA, Remmers S, van Leenders G et al. Urinary incontinence and sexual function after the introduction of NeuroSAFE in radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. Focus 2023; 9; 824–831.
Ambrosini F, Preisser F, Tilki D et al. Nerve‐sparing radical prostatectomy using the neurovascular structure‐adjacent frozen‐section examination (NeuroSAFE): results after 20 years of experience. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00851-x
Kinnear N, Fonseca PC, Ogbechie C et al. Impact of frozen section on long‐term outcomes in robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2024. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16437
Fossa SD, Beyer B, Dahl AA et al. Improved patient‐reported functional outcomes after nerve‐sparing radical prostatectomy by using NeuroSAFE technique. Scand. J. Urol. 2019; 53; 385–391.
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. EAU‐EANM‐ESTRO‐ESUR‐ISUP‐SIOG guidelines on prostate Cancer‐2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 2024; 1; 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027
Dinneen E, Grierson J, Almeida‐Magana R et al. NeuroSAFE PROOF: study protocol for a single‐blinded, IDEAL stage 3, multi‐centre, randomised controlled trial of NeuroSAFE robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Trials 2022; 23; 584.
The Royal College of Pathologists. Meeting pathology demand Histopathlogy workforce census. London: The Royal College of Pathologists, 2018.
Gretser S, Hoeh B, Kinzler MN et al. The NeuroSAFE frozen section technique during radical prostatectomy – implementation and optimization of technical aspects in a routine pathology workflow. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2023; 242; 154297.
Olde Heuvel J, de Wit‐van der Veen BJ, Huizing DMV et al. State‐of‐the‐art intraoperative imaging Technologies for Prostate Margin Assessment: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. Focus 2021; 7; 733–741.
Wang M, Tulman DB, Sholl AB et al. Gigapixel surface imaging of radical prostatectomy specimens for comprehensive detection of cancer‐positive surgical margins using structured illumination microscopy. Sci. Rep. 2016; 6; 27419.
Cahill LC, Wu Y, Yoshitake T et al. Nonlinear microscopy for detection of prostate cancer: analysis of sensitivity and specificity in radical prostatectomies. Mod. Pathol. 2020; 33; 916–923.
Darr C, Costa PF, Kahl T et al. Intraoperative molecular positron emission tomography imaging for intraoperative assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2023; 54; 28–32.
Rajakumar T, Yassin M, Musbahi O et al. Use of intraoperative fluorescence to enhance robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Future Oncol. 2021; 17; 1083–1095.
Baranski AC, Schafer M, Bauder‐Wust U et al. PSMA‐11‐derived dual‐labeled PSMA inhibitors for preoperative PET imaging and precise fluorescence‐guided surgery of prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2018; 59; 639–645.
Petralia G, Musi G, Padhani AR et al. Robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: multiparametric MR imaging‐directed intraoperative frozen‐section analysis to reduce the rate of positive surgical margins. Radiology 2015; 274; 434–444.
Koseoglu E, Kulac I, Armutlu A et al. Intraoperative frozen section via Neurosafe during robotic radical prostatectomy in the era of preoperative risk stratifications and primary staging with mpMRI and PSMA‐PET CT: is there a perfect candidate? Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2023; 21; 602–611.
Rocco B, Sighinolfi MC, Bertoni L et al. Real‐time assessment of surgical margins during radical prostatectomy: a novel approach that uses fluorescence confocal microscopy for the evaluation of periprostatic soft tissue. BJU Int. 2020; 125; 487–489.
Baas DJH, Vreuls W, Sedelaar JPM et al. Confocal laser microscopy for assessment of surgical margins during radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2023; 132; 40–46.
Almeida‐Magana R, Au M, Al‐Hammouri T et al. Improving fluorescence confocal microscopy for margin assessment during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: the LaserSAFE technique. BJU Int. 2023; 83; S1934.
Papa N, Perera M, Bensley JG et al. A decade of declining prostatectomy margin positivity within a prostate cancer clinical quality registry. Urol. Oncol. 2022; 40(12); 537.e19–537.e24.
Iremashvili V, Lokeshwar SD, Jorda M, Pelaez L, Soloway MS. Prognostic implications of partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: comparison of 3 methods. J. Urol. 2013; 190; 84–90.
Lu J, Wirth GJ, Wu S et al. A close surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of recurrence. J. Urol. 2012; 188; 91–97.
Oxley J, Bray A, Rowe E. Could a Mohs technique make NeuroSAFE a viable option? BJU Int. 2018; 122; 358–359.
Heidkamp J, Scholte M, Rosman C, Manohar S, Futterer JJ, Rovers MM. Novel imaging techniques for intraoperative margin assessment in surgical oncology: a systematic review. Int. J. Cancer 2021; 149; 635–645.
Giacomelli MG, Faulkner‐Jones BE, Cahill LC, Yoshitake T, Do D, Fujimoto JG. Comparison of nonlinear microscopy and frozen section histology for imaging of Mohs surgical margins. Biomed. Opt. Express 2019; 10; 4249–4260.
Musi G, Mistretta FA, de Cobelli O et al. A phase 3 prospective randomized trial to evaluate the impact of augmented reality during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy on the rates of postoperative surgical margins: a clinical trial protocol. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2024; 61; 1–9.
Musi G, Mistretta FA, Ivanova M et al. Evaluation of margins during radical prostatectomy: confocal microscopy vs frozen section analysis. BJU Int. 2024. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16441
Au M, Almeida‐Magana R, Al‐Hammouri T, Haider A, Shaw G. Accuracy of ex‐vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy in margin assessment of solid tumors: a systematic review. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2023; 71; 661–674.
Rocco B, Sighinolfi MC, Cimadamore A et al. Digital frozen section of the prostate surface during radical prostatectomy: a novel approach to evaluate surgical margins. BJU Int. 2020; 126; 336–338.
Rocco B, Sarchi L, Assumma S et al. Digital frozen sections with fluorescence confocal microscopy during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical technique. Eur. Urol. 2021; 80; 724–729.
Rocco B, Sighinolfi MC, Sandri M et al. Digital biopsy with fluorescence confocal microscope for effective real‐time diagnosis of prostate cancer: a prospective, comparative study. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2021; 4; 784–791.
Titze U, Hansen T, Brochhausen C et al. Diagnostic performance of ex vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy in the assessment of diagnostic biopsies of the prostate. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13; 5685.
Bertoni L, Puliatti S, Reggiani Bonetti L et al. Ex vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy: prostatic and periprostatic tissues atlas and evaluation of the learning curve. Virchows Arch. 2020; 476; 511–520.
Panarello D, Comperat E, Seyde O, Colau A, Terrone C, Guillonneau B. Atlas of ex vivo prostate tissue and cancer images using confocal laser endomicroscopy: a project for intraoperative positive surgical margin detection during radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. Focus 2020; 6; 941–958.
Almeida‐Magana R, Au M, Al‐Hammouri T et al. A0960 – accuracy of fluorescence confocal microscopy for detecting positive surgical margins during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: blind assessment and inter‐rater agreement. Eur. Urol. 2024; 85; S2032–S2033.
Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24; 6–15.
Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod. Pathol. 2011; 24; 48–57.
John A, Lim A, Catterwell R, Selth L, O'Callaghan M. Length of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: does size matter? ‐ a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023; 26; 673–680.
Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V et al. Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol. Oncol. 2015; 33(3); 109.e7–109.e13.
Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A et al. Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ‐confined prostate cancer. Prostate 2019; 79; 1832–1836.
Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 2008; 179(5 Suppl); S47–S51.
Khadhouri S, Miller C, Fowler S et al. The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit 2014/2015 – an update on current practice and outcomes by centre and surgeon case‐volume. BJU Int. 2018; 121; 886–892.
Philippou Y, Harriss E, Davies L et al. Prostatic capsular incision during radical prostatectomy has important oncological implications: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BJU Int. 2019; 124; 554–566.
von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2013; 190; 515–520.
Tully KH, Schulmeyer M, Hanske J et al. Identification of patients at risk for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with intraoperative frozen section. BJU Int. 2021; 128; 598–606.
Pak S, Park S, Kim M, Go H, Cho YM, Ahn H. The impact on oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer of converting soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck from tumour‐positive to ‐negative. BJU Int. 2019; 123; 811–817.
Bianchi L, Chessa F, Angiolini A et al. The use of augmented reality to guide the intraoperative frozen section during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2021; 80; 480–488.