Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tissue print micropeel: A new technique for mapping tumor invasion in prostate cancer

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because of widely adopted screening programs for early detection of prostate cancers, many patients who undergo radical prostatectomy have tumors that are not grossly evident, and the extent and distribution of the cancer in the gland can only be determined by a microscopic examination of the surgical specimen. Historically, one of the most important predictors of the quality of cancer control following surgical resection of a solid tumor is the absence of cancer at the surgical margins. Although the clinical significance of cancer at the margins of a radical prostatectomy specimen has been a source of controversy in recent years, surgical pathology assessment of radical prostatectomy margins remains an important part of prostate cancer clinical care. However, a comprehensive histopathologic review of every radical prostatectomy specimen is beyond the resources of most hospitals. Tissue print micropeel technologies, combined with appropriate markers, provide a new strategy that combines a relatively simple technique for sampling specimen margins with a method for obtaining molecular information about the cancer that can add to the macroscopic and microscopic anatomical findings. This new tissue printing approach for incorporating molecular markers into the assessment of radical prostatectomy margins is reviewed in this article.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D, et al.: Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 2004, 64:551–555.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Jones TD, et al.: The influence of extent of surgical margin positivity on prostate specific antigen recurrence. J Clin Pathol 2005, 58:1028–1032.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al.: Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005, 174:903–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, et al.: Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999, 281:1395–1400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al.: Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002, 167:528–534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Nenner RP: Radical prostatectomy specimens among Medicare patients in New York State: a review of pathologists’ reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998, 122:966–971.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, et al.: Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:995–1000.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hammond ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC, et al.: College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV: Solid tumor prognostic factors: Which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:958–965.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Desai A, Wu J, Sun L, et al.: 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 2002, 5:212–218.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pearle MS, Oyasu R, Hidvegi D, et al.: Touch preparation cytological evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1994, 152:124–128.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brannigan RE, Shin E, Rademaker A, et al.: The usefulness of touch preparation cytological evaluation and prostatic capsule involvement in prediction of prostate cancer recurrence. J Urol 1998, 160:1741–1747.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Theodorescu D, Frierson HF Jr, Sikes RA: Molecular determination of surgical margins using fossa biopsies at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1999, 161:1442–1448.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Straub B, Muller M, Krause H, et al.: Reverse transcriptasepolymerase chain reaction for prostate-specific antigen in the molecular staging of pelvic surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2001, 57:1006–1011.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Straub B, Muller M, Krause H, et al.: Molecular staging of pelvic surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: comparison of RT-PCR for prostate-specific antigen and telomerase activity. Oncol Rep 2002, 9:545–549.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaston SM, Soares MA, Siddiqui MM, et al.: Tissue-print and print-phoresis as platform technologies for the molecular analysis of human surgical specimens: mapping tumor invasion of the prostate capsule. Nat Med 2005, 11:95–101. Presents results from a series of studies in which we evaluate tissue printing techniques as a general platform for incorporating molecular marker analysis into the assessment of radical prostatectomy margins. This paper also includes an initial evaluation of tissue print technologies for the molecular profiling of prostate needle biopsies.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cassab GI: Localization of cell wall proteins using tissue-print western blot techniques. Methods Enzymol 1993, 218:682–688.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Song YR, Ye ZH, Varner JE: Tissue-print hybridization on membrane for localization of mRNA in plant tissue. Methods Enzymol 1993, 218:671–681.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Calvo A, Gonzalez-Moreno O, Yoon CY, et al.: Prostate cancer and the genomic revolution: advances using microarray analyses. Mutat Res 2005, 576:66–79. These authors provide an overview and technical critique of recent gene expression profiling studies in prostate cancer research.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Murphy N, Millar E, Lee CS: Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: towards individualising patient management. Pathology 2005, 37:271–277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sjoholt G, Anensen N, Wergeland L, et al.: Proteomics in acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML): methodological strategies and identification of protein targets for novel antileukaemic therapy. Curr Drug Targets 2005, 6:631–646.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pappa KI, Anagnou NP: Emerging issues of the expression profiling technologies for the study of gynecologic cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193:908–918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brennan JA, Mao L, Hruban RH, et al.: Molecular assessment of histopathological staging in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 1995, 332:429–435.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. van Houten VM, Leemans CR, Kummer JA, et al.: Molecular diagnosis of surgical margins and local recurrence in head and neck cancer patients: a prospective study. Clin Cancer Res 2004, 10:3614–3620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Myers RB, Grizzle WE: Changes in biomarker expression in the development of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Biotech Histochem 1997, 72:86–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Moul JW: Angiogenesis, p53, bcl-2 and Ki-67 in the progression of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1999, 35:399–407.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Montironi R, Scarpelli M, Lopez Beltran A: Carcinoma of the prostate: inherited susceptibility, somatic gene defects, and androgen receptors. Virchows Arch 2004, 444:503–508.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rhodes DR, Sanda MG, Otte AP, et al.: Multiplex biomarker approach for determining risk of prostatespeci fic antigen-defined recurrence of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95:661–668. One of a series of important papers from a highly productive group; this study is focused on the potential clinical use of a series of molecular markers for predicting PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cuperlovic-Culf M, Belacel N, Ouellette RJ: Determina tion of tumour marker genes from gene expression data. Drug Discov Today 2005, 10:429–437.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Carr KM, Rosenblatt K, Petricoin EF, Liotta LA: Genomic and proteomic approaches for studying human cancer: prospects for true patient-tailored therapy. Hum Genomics 2004, 1:134–140.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fjeldstad K, Kolset SO: Decreasing the metastatic potential in cancers: targeting the heparan sulfate proteoglycans. Curr Drug Targets 2005, 6:665–682.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Baluk P, Hashizume H, McDonald DM: Cellular abnormalities of blood vessels as targets in cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2005, 15:102–111.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. van Beijnum JR, Griffioen AW: In silico analysis of angiogenesis associated gene expression identifies angiogenic stage-related profiles. Biochim Biophys Acta 2005, 1755:121–134.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Condon MS: The role of the stromal microenvironment in prostate cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 2005, 15:132–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chandran UR, Dhir R, Ma C, et al.: Differences in gene expression in prostate cancer, normal appearing prostate tissue adjacent to cancer, and prostate tissue from cancer free organ donors. BMC Cancer 2005, 5:45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cheng LL, Burns MA, Taylor JL, et al.: Metabolic characterization of human prostate cancer with tissue magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Cancer Res 2005, 65:3030–3034.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tuxhorn JA, Ayala GE, Rowley DR: Reactive stroma in prostate cancer progression. J Urol 2001, 166:2472–2483.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ayala G, Tuxhorn JA, Wheeler TM, et al.: Reactive stroma as a predictor of biochemical-free recurrence in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2003, 9:4792–4801.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Harding MA, Theodorescu D: Prostate tumor progression and prognosis. interplay of tumor and host factors. Urol Oncol 2000, 5:258–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tycko B: Genetic and epigenetic mosaicism in cancer precursor tissues. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003, 983:43–54. This review offers a valuable update of the classic concept of “field Effects” that predispose certain tissues to malignant transformation, focusing on studies that suggest that loss of heterozygosity and DNA methylation may be important mechanisms in this process.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wieser E, Strohmeyer D, Rogatsch H, et al.: Access of tumor-derived macromolecules and cells to the blood: an electron microscopic study of structural barriers in microvessel clusters in highly malignant primary prostate carcinomas. Prostate 2005, 62:123–132. These authors provide a meticulous examination of the ultrastructural changes in human prostate tumors and tissues, particularly in association with the tumor vasculature.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 863 Dana Building, 330 Brookline Avenue, 02215, Boston, MA, USA

    Sandra M. Gaston PhD

Authors
  1. Sandra M. Gaston PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa P. Upton MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra M. Gaston PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaston, S.M., Upton, M.P. Tissue print micropeel: A new technique for mapping tumor invasion in prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 7, 50–56 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0038-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0038-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation