Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimizing Prostate Specimen Handling for Diagnosis and Prognosis

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Histopathology

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 1180))

Abstract

Optimal processing, handling, and sampling of prostatic biopsies, transurethral resections, and radical prostatectomy specimens ensure accurate diagnosis and staging. Prognostic factors derived from careful examination of tissue samples are critical for patient management, including cancer volume, extraprostatic extension, surgical margins, vascular/lymphatic invasion, and perineural invasion. This chapter addresses these important issues, including recent recommendations of a consensus panel of the International Society of Urologic Pathologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sakr WA, Wheeler TM, Blute M et al (1996) Staging and reporting of prostate cancer – sampling of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Cancer 78:366–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Varma M, Berney DM, Algaba F et al (2013) Prostate needle biopsy processing: a survey of laboratory practice across Europe. J Clin Pathol 66:120–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elabbady AA, Khedr MM (2006) Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol 49:49–53, discussion 53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eskicorapci SY, Guliyev F, Akdogan B et al (2005) Individualization of the biopsy protocol according to the prostate gland volume for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 173:1536–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eskicorapci SY, Tuncay L (2006) Re: Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. K. Eichler, S. Hempel, J. Wilby, L. Myers, L. M. Bachmann and J. Kleijnen, J Urol, 175: 1605-1612. J Urol 176:2745, author reply 2745–2746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Jorda M et al (2012) Prostate cancers of different zonal origin: clinicopathological characteristics and biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 80:1063–1069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI (2001) Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 32:494–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McNeal JE, Bostwick DG, Kindrachuk RA et al (1986) Patterns of progression in prostate cancer. Lancet 1:60–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS et al (1988) Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 12:897–906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Srigley JR, Amin MB, Epstein JI et al (2006) Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:936–946

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Haggman M, Norberg M, de la Torre M et al (1993) Characterization of localized prostatic cancer: distribution, grading and pT-staging in radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 27:7–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Desai A, Wu H, Sun L et al (2002) 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 Dis 5:212–218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fritsche HM, Aziz A, Eder F et al (2012) Potentially clinically relevant prostate cancer is found more frequently after complete than after partial histopathological processing of radical cystoprostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 461:655–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Henson DE, Hutter RV, Farrow G (1994) Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. A publication of the cancer committee, college of american pathologists. Task Force on the Examination of Specimens Removed From Patients With Prostate Cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 118:779–783

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol 24:39–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rogatsch H, Moser P, Volgger H et al (2000) Diagnostic effect of an improved preembedding method of prostate needle biopsy specimens. Hum Pathol 31:1102–1107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta C, Ren JZ, Wojno KJ (2004) Individual submission and embedding of prostate biopsies decreases rates of equivocal pathology reports. Urology 63:83–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bostwick DG, Kahane H (2013) Adequate histologic sectioning of prostate needle biopsies. Ann Diagn Pathol 17:357–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boccon-Gibod L, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R et al (2004) Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 46:177–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF et al (2003) Consistency of prostate cancer grading results in screened populations across Europe. BJU Int 92(Suppl 2):88–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Renshaw AA (1997) Adequate tissue sampling of prostate core needle biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 107:26–29

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 24:6–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bostwick DG, Burke HB, Djakiew D et al (2004) Human prostate cancer risk factors. Cancer 101:2371–2490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bostwick DG, Foster CS (1999) Predictive factors in prostate cancer: current concepts from the 1999 College of American Pathologists Conference on Solid Tumor Prognostic Factors and the 1999 World Health Organization Second International Consultation on Prostate Cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 17:222–272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Ahmadie HA, Tickoo SK, Olgac S et al (2008) Anterior-predominant prostatic tumors: zone of origin and pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 32:229–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Miyake H, Sakai I, Harada K et al (2005) Limited value of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo 51:241–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 24:16–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE (1994) Staging of prostate cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 10:60–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 24:26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 24:48–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Epstein JI, Sauvageot J (1997) Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol 157:241–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ng JC, Koch MO, Daggy JK et al (2004) Perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. J Urol 172:2249–2251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI (2012) Histologic criteria and pitfalls in the diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 36:1865–1873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bostwick Laboratories, 7001 Lake Ellenor Dr, Orlando, FL, 32809, USA

    David G. Bostwick M.D., M.B.A.

  2. Department of Pathology, USC Keck School of Medicine, 1500 San Pablo St., NIT, Rm 212, 90033, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Christina E. Day M.D.

  3. Bostwick Laboratories, London, UK

    Isabelle Meiers M.D.

Authors
  1. David G. Bostwick M.D., M.B.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina E. Day M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabelle Meiers M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David G. Bostwick M.D., M.B.A. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Christina E. Day

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, New York

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Bostwick, D.G., Day, C.E., Meiers, I. (2014). Optimizing Prostate Specimen Handling for Diagnosis and Prognosis. In: Day, C. (eds) Histopathology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1180. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1050-2_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1050-2_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1049-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1050-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation