Abstract
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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Histopathology |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 211-6 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| ISSN | 0309-0167 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2011 |