Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens: A comparative analysis of sampling methods

G. S. Hall, C. E. Kramer, Jonathan Ira Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We evaluated 104 radical prostatectomies for clinical stage B (n = 93) and stage A (n = 11) prostate cancer. Seven (8%) stage B cases had no gross cancer. By submitting only gross stage B cancer along with standard sections of proximal and distal margins, base of seminal vesicles, and most apical section (next to distal margin), we identified 91% of capsular penetration and 96% of positive margins as compared with identification by complete microscopic examination. Although this method identified 100% capsular penetration and positive margins in stage A cases, 28% of all the cases were grossly normal. Stage A tumor was often difficult to identify because of its heterogeneous location, its gross similarity to nodular hyperplasia, and the confounding presence of post-transurethral resection scarring. In 98% of all stages B and A cases, this method identified to within 1, the Gleason sum of the totally embedded radical prostatectomy. Using this sampling method, key pathologic parameters were identified with an average of 13 blocks (range 7- 36) as compared with totally embedding the prostate, using an average of 42 blocks (range 21-81). Based on our study and our understanding of stages A and B disease, we recommend that in grossly normal glands, alternate posterior sections (stage B) and alternate entire sections (stage A) be submitted. Use of this sampling method will achieve a greater uniformity in the processing of specimens and a more accurate pathologic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)315-324
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume16
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1992

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Neoplasms
Seminal Vesicles
Hyperplasia
Cicatrix
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Capsular penetration
  • Grade
  • Margins
  • Prostate
  • Prostate adenocarcinoma
  • Radical prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens : A comparative analysis of sampling methods. / Hall, G. S.; Kramer, C. E.; Epstein, Jonathan Ira.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1992, p. 315-324.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a8a62f6d8ece425a9fd528a9f1ac2921,
title = "Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens: A comparative analysis of sampling methods",
abstract = "We evaluated 104 radical prostatectomies for clinical stage B (n = 93) and stage A (n = 11) prostate cancer. Seven (8{\%}) stage B cases had no gross cancer. By submitting only gross stage B cancer along with standard sections of proximal and distal margins, base of seminal vesicles, and most apical section (next to distal margin), we identified 91{\%} of capsular penetration and 96{\%} of positive margins as compared with identification by complete microscopic examination. Although this method identified 100{\%} capsular penetration and positive margins in stage A cases, 28{\%} of all the cases were grossly normal. Stage A tumor was often difficult to identify because of its heterogeneous location, its gross similarity to nodular hyperplasia, and the confounding presence of post-transurethral resection scarring. In 98{\%} of all stages B and A cases, this method identified to within 1, the Gleason sum of the totally embedded radical prostatectomy. Using this sampling method, key pathologic parameters were identified with an average of 13 blocks (range 7- 36) as compared with totally embedding the prostate, using an average of 42 blocks (range 21-81). Based on our study and our understanding of stages A and B disease, we recommend that in grossly normal glands, alternate posterior sections (stage B) and alternate entire sections (stage A) be submitted. Use of this sampling method will achieve a greater uniformity in the processing of specimens and a more accurate pathologic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens.",
keywords = "Capsular penetration, Grade, Margins, Prostate, Prostate adenocarcinoma, Radical prostatectomy",
author = "Hall, {G. S.} and Kramer, {C. E.} and Epstein, {Jonathan Ira}",
year = "1992",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "315--324",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens

T2 - A comparative analysis of sampling methods

AU - Hall, G. S.

AU - Kramer, C. E.

AU - Epstein, Jonathan Ira

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - We evaluated 104 radical prostatectomies for clinical stage B (n = 93) and stage A (n = 11) prostate cancer. Seven (8%) stage B cases had no gross cancer. By submitting only gross stage B cancer along with standard sections of proximal and distal margins, base of seminal vesicles, and most apical section (next to distal margin), we identified 91% of capsular penetration and 96% of positive margins as compared with identification by complete microscopic examination. Although this method identified 100% capsular penetration and positive margins in stage A cases, 28% of all the cases were grossly normal. Stage A tumor was often difficult to identify because of its heterogeneous location, its gross similarity to nodular hyperplasia, and the confounding presence of post-transurethral resection scarring. In 98% of all stages B and A cases, this method identified to within 1, the Gleason sum of the totally embedded radical prostatectomy. Using this sampling method, key pathologic parameters were identified with an average of 13 blocks (range 7- 36) as compared with totally embedding the prostate, using an average of 42 blocks (range 21-81). Based on our study and our understanding of stages A and B disease, we recommend that in grossly normal glands, alternate posterior sections (stage B) and alternate entire sections (stage A) be submitted. Use of this sampling method will achieve a greater uniformity in the processing of specimens and a more accurate pathologic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens.

AB - We evaluated 104 radical prostatectomies for clinical stage B (n = 93) and stage A (n = 11) prostate cancer. Seven (8%) stage B cases had no gross cancer. By submitting only gross stage B cancer along with standard sections of proximal and distal margins, base of seminal vesicles, and most apical section (next to distal margin), we identified 91% of capsular penetration and 96% of positive margins as compared with identification by complete microscopic examination. Although this method identified 100% capsular penetration and positive margins in stage A cases, 28% of all the cases were grossly normal. Stage A tumor was often difficult to identify because of its heterogeneous location, its gross similarity to nodular hyperplasia, and the confounding presence of post-transurethral resection scarring. In 98% of all stages B and A cases, this method identified to within 1, the Gleason sum of the totally embedded radical prostatectomy. Using this sampling method, key pathologic parameters were identified with an average of 13 blocks (range 7- 36) as compared with totally embedding the prostate, using an average of 42 blocks (range 21-81). Based on our study and our understanding of stages A and B disease, we recommend that in grossly normal glands, alternate posterior sections (stage B) and alternate entire sections (stage A) be submitted. Use of this sampling method will achieve a greater uniformity in the processing of specimens and a more accurate pathologic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens.

KW - Capsular penetration

KW - Grade

KW - Margins

KW - Prostate

KW - Prostate adenocarcinoma

KW - Radical prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026598534&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026598534&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1373577

AN - SCOPUS:0026598534

VL - 16

SP - 315

EP - 324

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 4

ER -