Comparative Analysis of Whole Mount Processing and Systematic Sampling of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Pathological Outcomes and Risk of Biochemical Recurrence

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Oct 2010Comparative Analysis of Whole Mount Processing and Systematic Sampling of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Pathological Outcomes and Risk of Biochemical Recurrence Shady Salem, Sam S. Chang, Peter E. Clark, Rodney Davis, S. Duke Herrell, Yakup Kordan, Marcia L. Wills, Scott B. Shappell, Roxelyn Baumgartner, Sharon Phillips, Joseph A. Smith, Michael S. Cookson, and Daniel A. Barocas Shady SalemShady Salem Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Sam S. ChangSam S. Chang Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Financial interest and/or other relationship with ENDO, Sanofi-Aventis and Allergan. More articles by this author , Peter E. ClarkPeter E. Clark Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Rodney DavisRodney Davis Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , S. Duke HerrellS. Duke Herrell Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Yakup KordanYakup Kordan Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Marcia L. WillsMarcia L. Wills Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Scott B. ShappellScott B. Shappell Avero Diagnostics, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author , Roxelyn BaumgartnerRoxelyn Baumgartner Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Sharon PhillipsSharon Phillips Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Joseph A. SmithJoseph A. Smith Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Michael S. CooksonMichael S. Cookson Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , and Daniel A. BarocasDaniel A. Barocas Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Financial interest and/or other relationship with Ferring. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.041AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Whole mount processing is more resource intensive than routine systematic sampling of radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. We compared whole mount and systematic sampling for detecting pathological outcomes, and compared the prognostic value of pathological findings across pathological methods. Materials and Methods: We included men (608 whole mount and 525 systematic sampling samples) with no prior treatment who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between January 2000 and June 2008. We used univariate and multivariate analysis to compare the pathological outcome detection rate between pathological methods. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test were used to compare the prognostic value of pathological findings across pathological methods. Results: There were no significant differences between the whole mount and the systematic sampling groups in detecting extraprostatic extension (25% vs 30%), positive surgical margins (31% vs 31%), pathological Gleason score less than 7 (49% vs 43%), 7 (39% vs 43%) or greater than 7 (12% vs 13%), seminal vesicle invasion (8% vs10%) or lymph node involvement (3% vs 5%). Tumor volume was higher in the systematic sampling group and whole mount detected more multiple surgical margins (each p <0.01). There were no significant differences in the likelihood of biochemical recurrence between the pathological methods when patients were stratified by pathological outcome. Conclusions: Except for estimated tumor volume and multiple margins whole mount and systematic sampling yield similar pathological information. Each method stratifies patients into comparable risk groups for biochemical recurrence. Thus, while whole mount is more resource intensive, it does not appear to result in improved detection of clinically important pathological outcomes or prognostication. References 1 : Cancer statistics, 2008. CA: Cancer J Clin2008; 58: 71. Google Scholar 2 Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation. http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-IRHome. Accessed January 6, 2009. Google Scholar 3 : Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA1999; 281: 1395. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 4 : Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol1999; 17: 1499. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 5 : Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma. Hum Pathol2007; 38: 1305. Google Scholar 6 : Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma: Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Clin Pathol2008; 129: 24. Google Scholar 7 : Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med2009; 133: 1568. Google Scholar 8 : Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol2005; 39: 34. Google Scholar 9 : Histopathology of localized prostate cancer. Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Prognostic Parameters in Localized Prostate Cancer. Stockholm, Sweden, May 12–13, 1993 Scand J Urol Nephrol1994; 162: 7. Google Scholar 10 : Pathological parameters of radical prostatectomy for clinical stages T1c versus T2 prostate adenocarcinoma: decreased pathological stage and increased detection of transition zone tumors. J Urol2002; 168: 519. Link, Google Scholar 11 : Reduced 15-lipoxygenase-2 immunostaining in prostate adenocarcinoma: correlation with grade and expression in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol2000; 31: 1146. Google Scholar 12 : Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med2006; 130: 303. Google Scholar 13 : Surgical pathology examination of the prostate gland: Practice survey by American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol1994; 102: 572. Google Scholar 14 : Handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP). Histopathology2008; 53: 333. Google Scholar 15 : Complete histologic serial sectioning of a prostate gland with adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol1993; 17: 468. Google Scholar 16 : Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol2001; 32: 494. Google Scholar 17 : Sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: How much is adequate?. Am J Clin Pathol1994; 101: 250. Google Scholar 18 : Whole mounted radical prostatectomy specimens do not increase detection of adverse pathological features. J Urol2000; 164: 1583. Link, Google Scholar 19 : Does the completeness of prostate sampling predict outcome for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy?: Data from the CAPSURE database. Urology2000; 56: 430. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 20 : 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 Dis2002; 5: 212. Google Scholar 21 : Ratio of free-to-total prostate specific antigen correlates with tumor volume in patients with increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol2001; 165: 455. Link, Google Scholar 22 : PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol2008; 179: 1804. Link, Google Scholar 23 : Fresh tissue harvest for research from prostatectomy specimens. Prostate1994; 25: 274. Google Scholar 24 : 15S-Hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and inhibits proliferation in PC3 prostate carcinoma cells. Cancer Res2001; 61: 497. Google Scholar © 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byIremashvili V, Lokeshwar S, Jorda M, Pelaez L and Soloway M (2012) Prognostic Implications of Partial Sampling of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Comparison of 3 MethodsJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 1, (84-90), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013.Davies J, Aghazadeh M, Phillips S, Salem S, Chang S, Clark P, Cookson M, Davis R, Herrell S, Penson D, Smith J and Barocas D (2011) Prostate Size as a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients With Low Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 186, NO. 6, (2221-2227), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2011. Volume 184Issue 4October 2010Page: 1334-1340 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordspathology, surgicalprostateclinical laboratory techniquesprostatectomyprostatic neoplasmsMetricsAuthor Information Shady Salem Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Sam S. Chang Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Financial interest and/or other relationship with ENDO, Sanofi-Aventis and Allergan. More articles by this author Peter E. Clark Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Rodney Davis Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author S. Duke Herrell Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Yakup Kordan Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Marcia L. Wills Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Scott B. Shappell Avero Diagnostics, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Roxelyn Baumgartner Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Sharon Phillips Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Joseph A. Smith Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Michael S. Cookson Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Daniel A. Barocas Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Financial interest and/or other relationship with Ferring. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...