Tumor Volume in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens Assessed by Digital Image Analysis Software Correlates With Other Prognostic Factors

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 May 2010Tumor Volume in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens Assessed by Digital Image Analysis Software Correlates With Other Prognostic Factorsis accompanied byThe EGFR Polymorphism rs884419 is Associated With Freedom From Recurrence in Patients With Resected Prostate Cancer Justin C. Sherwin, George Mirmilstein, John Pedersen, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Damien Bolton, and John Mills Justin C. SherwinJustin C. Sherwin TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia More articles by this author , George MirmilsteinGeorge Mirmilstein Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia More articles by this author , John PedersenJohn Pedersen TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia More articles by this author , Nathan LawrentschukNathan Lawrentschuk Urology Department, University Health Network, University of Toronto and Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada More articles by this author , Damien BoltonDamien Bolton Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia More articles by this author , and John MillsJohn Mills TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.017AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Digital image analysis software to review histopathology specimens is advancing uropathology by objectivity and reproducibility. Subjective pathologist assessed prostate tumor volume calculations correlate with known prognostic factors at radical prostatectomy. We ascertained whether image analysis software calculations of prostate tumor volume correlate with such prognostic factors, particularly positive surgical margins. Materials and Methods: Prostate tumor volume was calculated using digital image analysis software in 851 sequential radical prostatectomy specimens. Results were correlated with clinicopathological data by logistic regression. Results: Median prostate tumor volume was 2.2 cc (IQR 0.9–3.8). Median peripheral and transition zone tumor volume was 1.9 and 0.6 cc, respectively. Transition zone tumors were noted in 236 specimens (27.8%) and positive surgical margins occurred in 244 (28.7%). Tumors with extensive positive surgical margins had larger image analysis software assessed prostate tumor volume (p = 0.029) and peripheral zone volume (p = 0.007) than those with only focal positive surgical margins. On univariate analysis positive surgical margin tumors were larger and had seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension, perineural invasion and higher preoperative prostate specific antigen than those without positive surgical margins (each p <0.001). A linear relationship existed between image analysis software determined prostate tumor volume, and increasing tumor stage, Gleason score and prostate specific antigen (p for trend <0.001). On multivariate analysis tumor volume and tumor volume as a percent of prostate volume predicted positive surgical margins. Conclusions: Prostate tumor volume determined objectively by image analysis software correlates with positive surgical margins, as do prognostic variables such as extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, perineural invasion, peripheral zone volume and Gleason score greater than 7. Objective digital image analysis software assessment appears to be a valid form to determine prostate tumor volume at radical prostatectomy. It is a useful adjunct to other histopathological analyses. References 1 : Long-term cancer patient survival in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev1998; 7: 271. Google Scholar 2 : Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology1996; 48: 80. Google Scholar 3 : Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer1969; 23: 24. Google Scholar 4 : Localized prostate cancer: Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer1993; 71: 933. Google Scholar 5 : Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA1999; 281: 1395. Google Scholar 6 : Percentage of tumor in prostatectomy specimens: a study of American veterans. Am J Clin Pathol2009; 131: 86. Google Scholar 7 : Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol1988; 139: 1235. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer1990; 66: 1225. Google Scholar 9 : Capsular penetration in prostate cancer: Significance for natural history and treatment. Am J Surg Pathol1990; 14: 240. Google Scholar 10 : Should Gleason score 7 prostate cancer be considered a unique grade category?. Urology1999; 53: 372. Google Scholar 11 : Prostate volume and pathologic prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urology2007; 70: 696. Google Scholar 12 : Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol1992; 23: 258. Google Scholar 13 : Volume of detected disease and ability to effect cure by radical prostatectomy. World J Urol1989; 7: 45. Google Scholar 14 : Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity?: Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology2000; 56: 730. Google Scholar 15 : Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol2003; 170: 2292. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Do margins matter?: The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol2008; 179: S47. Link, Google Scholar 17 : The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst2007; 99: 1171. Google Scholar 18 : Surgical management of high risk prostate cancer: the Mayo Clinic experience. Urol Oncol2008; 26: 530. Google Scholar 19 : Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol2008; 32: 1503. Google Scholar 20 : Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens: A comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am J Surg Pathol1992; 16: 315. Google Scholar 21 : Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer1993; 71: 3582. Google Scholar 22 : Management of a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy: decision analysis. J Urol2000; 164: 93. Link, Google Scholar 23 : Predominant treatment failure in postprostatectomy patients is local: analysis of patterns of treatment failure in SWOG 8794. J Clin Oncol2007; 25: 2225. Google Scholar 24 : Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet2005; 366: 572. Google Scholar © 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byKapoor J, Namdarian B, Pedersen J, Hovens C, Moon D, Peters J, Costello A, Ruljancich P and Corcoran N (2018) Extraprostatic Extension into Periprostatic Fat is a More Important Determinant of Prostate Cancer Recurrence than an Invasive PhenotypeJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 6, (2061-2067), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2013.Ahmed H, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Sahu M, Scott R, Allen C, Van der Meulen J and Emberton M (2018) Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Phase I/II TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 4, (1246-1255), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2011.O'Brien B, Cohen R, Ryan A, Sengupta S and Mills J (2018) A New Preoperative Nomogram to Predict Minimal Prostate Cancer: Accuracy and Error Rates Compared to Other Tools to Select Patients for Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 186, NO. 5, (1811-1817), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2011.Related articlesJournal of Urology19 Mar 2010The EGFR Polymorphism rs884419 is Associated With Freedom From Recurrence in Patients With Resected Prostate Cancer Volume 183Issue 5May 2010Page: 1808-1815 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordscomputer-assistedprostatic neoplasmimage processingprostateprostatectomytumor burdenMetricsAuthor Information Justin C. Sherwin TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia More articles by this author George Mirmilstein Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia More articles by this author John Pedersen TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia More articles by this author Nathan Lawrentschuk Urology Department, University Health Network, University of Toronto and Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada More articles by this author Damien Bolton Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia More articles by this author John Mills TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...