Prospective selective embedding of radical prostatectomy specimens is not inferior to full embedding regarding established and new prognostic parameters.
Complete embedding
Macroscopy
Partial embedding
Prostate cancer
Journal
Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology
ISSN: 1432-2307
Titre abrégé: Virchows Arch
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9423843
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2024
01 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
17
06
2024
accepted:
17
09
2024
revised:
12
09
2024
medline:
1
10
2024
pubmed:
1
10
2024
entrez:
30
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The histopathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens is essential for assessing critical tumor characteristics, including stage, grade, and margins, all of which impact patient prognosis. However, the extent of embedding the prostate has long been a subject of debate, with some advocating partial/selective embedding and others favoring complete embedding. This study establishes a standardized and time-efficient protocol for processing radical prostatectomy specimens with limited embedding while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Two hundred twenty-six prostatectomy specimens were analyzed, and the results of a highly standardized selective embedding protocol, systematically embedding the apex, the base, the transition to the seminal vesicles, and selected horizontal sections, were compared with full embedding as the gold standard. Non-inferiority testing was conducted by one-sided binomial tests and Pearson-Clopper confidence intervals. Selective embedding provided consistent and accurate diagnostic information with up to 90-98% concordance in pT, margins, ISUP-grade groups, and presence of IDC-P and cribriform tumor growth. In summary, this study establishes an economical standardized protocol for selective embedding of radical prostatectomy specimens with only minimal loss of information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39349666
doi: 10.1007/s00428-024-03931-4
pii: 10.1007/s00428-024-03931-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Erdmann F et al (2021) Krebs in Deutschland für 2017/2018. https://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Publikationen/Krebs_in_Deutschland/fruehere_ausgaben/downloads/krebs_in_deutschland_13.pdf?__blob=publicationFile . Accessed 12 Dec 2023
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.2, 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2023
Giona S (2021) The epidemiology of prostate cancer. In: Prostate Cancer, Exon Publicatons, Brisbane (AU), pp 1–15
Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, Mucci LA (2018) The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Med 8(12):a030361. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a030361
doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a030361
WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board (2022) Urinary and male genital tumours [Internet]. WHO classification of tumours series, 5th ed., vol 8. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon; [cited 2023 October 26]. Available from: https://tumourclassification.iarc.who.int/chapters/36
Schuurman MS et al (2023) The cancer burden in the oldest-old: increasing numbers and disparities-a nationwide study in the Netherlands, 1990 to 2019. Int J Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34705
doi: 10.1002/ijc.34705
pubmed: 37664984
Handke AE, Ritter M, Albers P, Noldus J, Radtke JP, Krausewitz P (2023) Multiparametrische MRT und alternative Methoden in der Interventions- und Behandlungsplanung beim Prostatakarzinom. Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-023-02190-6
doi: 10.1007/s00120-023-02190-6
pubmed: 37666944
Wittekind C (2020) TNM Klassifikation Maligner Tumoren. Korrigierter Nachdruck 2020 Mit Allen Ergänzungen der UICC Aus Den Jahren 2017 Bis 2019, 8th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, Newark, pp 245–248
Kweldam CF, van der Kwast T, van Leenders GJ (2018) On cribriform prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 7:145–154. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.33
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.33
pubmed: 29594028
pmcid: 5861292
Varma M, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Samaratunga H, Kristiansen G (2019) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a critical re-appraisal. Virchows Archiv 474:525–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02544-6
doi: 10.1007/s00428-019-02544-6
pubmed: 30825003
pmcid: 6505500
Samaratunga H et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 24:6–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.178
(2023) EAU guidelines limited update March 2023. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer . Accessed 26 Oct 2023
Hall GS, Kramer CE, Epstein JI (1992) Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. A comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am J Surg Pathol 16:315–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199204000-00001
doi: 10.1097/00000478-199204000-00001
pubmed: 1373577
Cohen MB, Soloway MS, Murphy WM (1994) Sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. How much is adequate? Am J Clin Pathol 101:250–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/101.3.250
doi: 10.1093/ajcp/101.3.250
pubmed: 8135177
Hollenbeck BK et al (2000) Whole mounted radical prostatectomy specimens do not increase detection of adverse pathological features. J Urol 164:1583–1586
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67033-4
pubmed: 11025709
Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI (2001) Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Human Pathol 32:494–499. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.24322
doi: 10.1053/hupa.2001.24322
Grossfeld GD et al (2000) Does the completeness of prostate sampling predict outcome for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy?: data from the CAPSURE database. Urology 56:430–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00705-6
doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00705-6
pubmed: 10962308
Desai A et al (2002) Complete embedding and close step-sectioning of radical prostatectomy specimens both increase detection of extra-prostatic extension, and correlate with increased disease-free survival by stage of prostate cancer patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 5:212–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500600
doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500600
pubmed: 12496984
Vainer B, Toft BG, Olsen KE, Jacobsen GK, Marcussen N (2011) Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding? Histopathology 58:211–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03741.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03741.x
pubmed: 21323948
Llanos CA, Blieden C, Vernon SE (2012) Processing radical prostatectomies: an alternate-slice method is comparable with total embedding. Ann Diagn Pathol 16:284–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2011.10.004
doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2011.10.004
pubmed: 22115537
Iremashvili V et al (2013) Partial sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: detection of positive margins and extraprostatic extension. Am J Surg Pathol 37:219–225. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318268ccc1
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318268ccc1
pubmed: 23095506
Fadul LC, da Silva MT, de Freitas LAR, Athanazio DA (2016) Assessment of the circumferential margins, extraprostatic extension and Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens: comparison of a partial embedding method with supplemental total inclusion of peripheral tissues. Pathol Res Pract 212:217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2015.12.014
doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2015.12.014
pubmed: 26774290
Kim K et al (2009) Limited sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens with excellent preservation of prognostic parameters of prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1278–1284. https://doi.org/10.5858/133.8.1278
doi: 10.5858/133.8.1278
pubmed: 19653726
Collette ERP, den Bakker MA, Klaver SO, Vis AN, Kliffen M (2019) Partial versus complete prostatectomy specimen sampling: prospective non-inferiority study for pT3a tumours and surgical margin involvement. BMJ Open 9(4):e024524. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024524
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024524
pubmed: 30975668
pmcid: 6500235
Kench JG et al (2019) Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Virchows Archiv Int J Pathol 475:263–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02574-0
doi: 10.1007/s00428-019-02574-0
Egevad L et al (2017) Prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy specimen, histpathology reporting guide, 2nd edn. International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting, Sydney
van Leenders GJLH et al (2020) The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 44:e87–e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
pubmed: 32459716
pmcid: 7382533
Egevad L, Srigley JR, Delahunt B (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: rationale and organization. Modern Pathol Off J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc 24:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.159
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.159
Tan PH et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Modern Pathol Off J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc 24:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.155
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.155
Magi-Galluzzi C et al (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. Modern Pathol Off J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc 24:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.158
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.158
Berney DM et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Modern Pathol Off J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc 24:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.160
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.160
John A, Lim A, Catterwell R, Selth L, O’Callaghan M (2023) Length of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: does size matter? - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00654-6
doi: 10.1038/s41391-023-00654-6
pubmed: 36859711
pmcid: 10638086
van der Kwast TH et al (2021) ISUP consensus definition of cribriform pattern prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 45:1118–1126. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001728
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001728
pubmed: 33999555
R Core Team (2023) _R: a language and environment for statistical computing_. Available at https://www.R-project.org/ . Accessed 12 Nov 2023
Ludbrook J (2000) Multiple inferences using confidence intervals. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 27:212–215. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1681.2000.03223.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2000.03223.x
pubmed: 10744350
Kandori S, Kojima T, Nishiyama H (2019) The updated points of TNM classification of urological cancers in the 8th edition of AJCC and UICC. Jpn J Clin Oncol 49:421–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyz017
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyz017
pubmed: 30844068
Epstein JI et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
pubmed: 26492179
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
pubmed: 16096414
Zhou M et al (2015) Diagnosis of “poorly formed glands” Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol 39:1331–1339. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000457
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000457
pubmed: 26099009
Sauter G et al (2016) Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 69:592–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
pubmed: 26542947
Deutscher Ärzteverlag GmbH (2022) Ärztliche Labore warnen vor zunehmendem Personalmangel. Available at https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/139491/Aerztliche-Labore-warnen-vor-zunehmendem-Personalmangel . Accessed 28 Nov 2023
Herbst H, Rüdiger T, Hofmann C (2022) Automatisierung und Einsatz von Robotern im Pathologielabor. Der Pathologe 43:210–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-022-01073-5
doi: 10.1007/s00292-022-01073-5
pubmed: 35462567
Trecourt A et al (2023) Carbon footprint evaluation of routine anatomic pathology practices using eco-audit: current status and mitigation strategies. Ann Diagn Pathol 67:152210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2023.152210
doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2023.152210
pubmed: 37734347
Gordon IO, Sherman JD, Leapman M, Overcash M, Thiel CL (2021) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of gastrointestinal biopsies in a surgical pathology laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol 156:540–549. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqab021
doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqab021
pubmed: 33822876
Quarks (2023) CO2-Rechner für Auto, Flugzeug und Co. Available at https://www.quarks.de/umwelt/klimawandel/co2-rechner-fuer-auto-flugzeug-und-co/ . Accessed 28 Nov 2023
Korzilius H (2019) Deutsches Gesundheitssystem: Hohe Kosten, durchschnittliche Ergebnisse. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 116:2283–2284
Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung KBV (2023) Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM). Histologe/Zytologe/Molekularpathologe. Arztgruppen-EBM. https://www.kbv.de/html/arztgruppen_ebm.php . Accessed 28 Nov 2023
Montironi R et al (2017) Whole slide imaging of large format histology in prostate pathology: potential for information fusion. Arch Pathol Lab Med 141:1460–1461. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0198-LE
doi: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0198-LE
pubmed: 29072947
Tot T (2010) Cost-benefit analysis of using large-format histology sections in routine diagnostic breast care. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 19:284–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2010.03.015
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.03.015
pubmed: 20382020
Bundesärztekammer (2022) Ärztestatistik zum 31.12.2022. https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BAEK/Ueber_uns/Statistik/AErztestatistik_2022_09062023.pdf . Accessed 11 Sept 2023
The Royal College of Pathologists (2018) Meeting-pathology-demand-histopathology-workforce-census. https://www.rcpath.org/static/952a934d-2ec3-48c9-a8e6e00fcdca700f/Meeting-Pathology-Demand-Histopathology-Workforce-Census-2018.pdf . Accessed 12 Sept 2023