Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding?
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding? / Vainer, Ben; Toft, Birgitte Grønkaer; Olsen, Karen Ege; Jacobsen, Grete Krag; Marcussen, Niels.
In: Histopathology, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2011, p. 211-6.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding?
AU - Vainer, Ben
AU - Toft, Birgitte Grønkaer
AU - Olsen, Karen Ege
AU - Jacobsen, Grete Krag
AU - Marcussen, Niels
N1 - © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Limited.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - AIMS: Proper examination and accurate reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens (RPS) is essential in determining post-surgical treatment and predicting patient outcome. Surveys have demonstrated the absence of consensus on handling of RPS. The aim of this study was to determine whether significant information is lost when only half the horizontal tissue sections are examined.METHODS AND RESULTS: During a 1-year period, 238 RPS were sectioned into horizontal slices. Apex and basis was cut sagittally, and remaining slices were embedded in quadrants. Glass slides from every second horizontal slice were withheld. The remaining slides were evaluated microscopically, and essential pathological parameters were recorded. Subsequently, a full report was compiled, including the withheld slides. A median of 12 slides (30%) were withheld during initial assessment. In eight RPS (3.2%) the pTNM stage had to be changed; in six cases (2.6%) from pT2b to pT2c and in two cases (0.8%) from pT2c to pT3a. In one RPS (0.4%) the surgical margin status was changed.CONCLUSIONS: Only little information is lost with systematic partial embedding, overlooking features significant for the postoperative treatment in only 1.2%. Partial embedding as suggested, decreasing the laboratory workload by 30%, is concluded to be acceptable for valid histopathological assessment.
AB - AIMS: Proper examination and accurate reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens (RPS) is essential in determining post-surgical treatment and predicting patient outcome. Surveys have demonstrated the absence of consensus on handling of RPS. The aim of this study was to determine whether significant information is lost when only half the horizontal tissue sections are examined.METHODS AND RESULTS: During a 1-year period, 238 RPS were sectioned into horizontal slices. Apex and basis was cut sagittally, and remaining slices were embedded in quadrants. Glass slides from every second horizontal slice were withheld. The remaining slides were evaluated microscopically, and essential pathological parameters were recorded. Subsequently, a full report was compiled, including the withheld slides. A median of 12 slides (30%) were withheld during initial assessment. In eight RPS (3.2%) the pTNM stage had to be changed; in six cases (2.6%) from pT2b to pT2c and in two cases (0.8%) from pT2c to pT3a. In one RPS (0.4%) the surgical margin status was changed.CONCLUSIONS: Only little information is lost with systematic partial embedding, overlooking features significant for the postoperative treatment in only 1.2%. Partial embedding as suggested, decreasing the laboratory workload by 30%, is concluded to be acceptable for valid histopathological assessment.
U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03741.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03741.x
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 21323948
VL - 58
SP - 211
EP - 216
JO - Histopathology
JF - Histopathology
SN - 0309-0167
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 40222060