Article

Srigley JR, Amin MB, Epstein JI, et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.84). 08/2006; 130(7):936-46. DOI: 10.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[936:UPFTEO]2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
3 Reads
    • "The histopathological evaluation of prostatectomy specimens is essential for decision-making and for predicting a patient's outcome [7]. Consequently, diverse standardized sectioning and documentation protocols for radical prostatectomy specimens have been developed [7] [8] [9]. We applied a standardized protocol for pathological reports according to Bettendorf et al. [9] (Fig. 1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Understanding the topographical distribution of prostate cancer (PCa) foci is necessary to optimize the biopsy strategy. This study was done to develop a technical approach that facilitates the analysis of the topographical distribution of PCa foci and related pathological findings (i.e., Gleason score and foci dimensions) in prostatectomy specimens. Material & methods: The topographical distribution of PCa foci and related pathologic evaluations were documented using the cMDX documentation system. The project was performed in three steps. First, we analyzed the document architecture of cMDX, including textual and graphical information. Second, we developed a data model supporting the topographic analysis of PCa foci and related pathologic parameters. Finally, we retrospectively evaluated the analysis model in 168 consecutive prostatectomy specimens of men diagnosed with PCa who underwent total prostate removal. The distribution of PCa foci were analyzed and visualized in a heat map. The color depth of the heat map was reduced to 6 colors representing the PCa foci frequencies, using an image posterization effect. We randomly defined 9 regions in which the frequency of PCa foci and related pathologic findings were estimated. Results: Evaluation of the spatial distribution of tumor foci according to Gleason score was enabled by using a filter function for the score, as defined by the user. PCa foci with Gleason score (Gls) 6 were identified in 67.3% of the patients, of which 55 (48.2%) also had PCa foci with Gls between 7 and 10. Of 1,173 PCa foci, 557 had Gls 6, whereas 616 PCa foci had Gls >6. PCa foci with Gls 6 were mostly concentrated in the posterior part of the peripheral zone of the prostate, whereas PCa foci with Gls >6 extended toward the basal and anterior parts of the prostate. The mean size of PCa foci with Gls 6 was significantly lower than that of PCa with Gls >6 (P<0.0001). Conclusion: The cMDX-based technical approach facilitates analysis of the topographical distribution of PCa foci and related pathologic findings in prostatectomy specimens.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Journal of Biomedical Informatics
  • Source
    • "A single pathologist experienced in urogenital pathology performed microscopic evaluation of the slides. The morphological parameters were recorded as follows: histological type of cancer, if present (based on WHO classification [16]); Gleason score (GS) with primary, secondary and tertiary, if appropriate, grades (according to 2005 ISUP Consensus Conference [17]); pathological stage [18]; evaluation of tumour extension, local invasion into periprostatic tissue or seminal vesicles, perineural spread, venous and/or lymphatic vessel invasion and surgical margin status [19]. PCa was present in 329 surgical specimens, 105 were classified as BPH without any malignant structures. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infection plays a role in the pathogenesis of many human malignancies. Whether prostate cancer (PCa) - an important health issue in the aging male population in the Western world - belongs to these conditions has been a matter of research since the 1970 s. Persistent serum antibodies are a proof of present or past infection. The aim of this study was to compare serum antibodies against genitourinary infectious agents between PCa patients and controls with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). We hypothesized that elevated serum antibody levels or higher seroprevalence in PCa patients would suggest an association of genitourinary infection in patient history and elevated PCa risk. A total of 434 males who had undergone open prostate surgery in a single institution were included in the study: 329 PCa patients and 105 controls with BPH. The subjects' serum samples were analysed by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, complement fixation test and indirect immunofluorescence for the presence of antibodies against common genitourinary infectious agents: human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31 and 33, herpes simplex virus (HSV) 1 and 2, human cytomegalovirus (CMV), Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma hominis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Treponema pallidum. Antibody seroprevalence and mean serum antibody levels were compared between cases and controls. Tumour grade and stage were correlated with serological findings. PCa patients were more likely to harbour antibodies against Ureaplasma urealyticum (odds ratio (OR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-4.28). Men with BPH were more often seropositive for HPV 18 and Chlamydia trachomatis (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09-0.61 and OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21-0.99, respectively) and had higher mean serum CMV antibody levels than PCa patients (p = 0.0004). Among PCa patients, antibodies against HPV 6 were associated with a higher Gleason score (p = 0.0305). Antibody seropositivity against the analyzed pathogens with the exception of Ureaplasma does not seem to be a risk factor for PCa pathogenesis. The presence or higher levels of serum antibodies against the genitourinary pathogens studied were not consistently associated with PCa. Serostatus was not a predictor of disease stage in the studied population.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2011 · BMC Cancer
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The information contained in pathology reports of radical prostatectomy specimens is critically important to treating physicians for the selection of adjuvant therapy, the evaluation of therapy, estimating prognosis, and analyzing outcomes. This information is also important to patients and their families. The first phase of this study consisted of a retrospective chart review of 554 cases of radical prostatectomy (ICD-9-CM procedure code of 60.5) in New York State for the second six-month period of 1996. This review focused on ten elements (quality indicators): submission of a frozen section, location of the adenocarcinoma, proportion of specimen involved by adenocarcinoma, perineural involvement, vascular involvement, seminal vesicle status, periprostate fat status, number of nodes submitted, status of nodes, and PIN (prostate intra-epithelial neoplasia). The second phase of this project consisted of an educational feedback program involving the directors of pathology laboratories in all hospitals in New York State. A post-intervention review of the medical charts of all male Medicare patients discharged from New York State acute care hospitals with the ICD-9-CM procedure code of 60.5 (radical prostatectomy) was conducted for the six-month period February 1 through July 31, 1999. A total of 304 charts were reviewed. Performance on the ten indicators in the first phase of the study varied from 14.8% (periprostate fat status) to 85.9% (seminal vesicle involvement). Performance for all hospitals was 50% for four quality indicators and less than 70% for seven. Post-intervention improvements in performance occurred with nine of the ten quality indicators. These improvements ranged from 1.4% (status of lymph nodes submitted) to 23.9% (proportion of specimen involved by adenocarcinoma). The results of this study demonstrate that the issues identified in the baseline with radical prostatectomy pathology reports were amenable to a cooperative educational intervention.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2002 · Journal of Community Health
Show more