Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histological Evaluations of RADICAL Prostatectomy Specimens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 963 Accesses

Abstract

Histological evaluation of RADICAL prostatectomy specimens (RALP) provides essential information on prognostic features for further decision-making. Beyond the final report, intraoperative microscopical analysis has gained renowned interest in the last decade, in the effort to reduce positive surgical margin rate. The chapter covers the current recommendation from guidelines on specimen handling, pathological reporting, and frozen section techniques.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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. Best S, Sawers Y, Fu VX, Almassi N, Huang W, Jarrard DF. Integrity of prostatic tissue for molecular analysis after robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;70(2):328–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):6–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Egevad L, Srigley JR, Delahunt B. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: rationale and organization. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, et al. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2385–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Samaratunga H, Samaratunga D, Perry-Keene J, Adamson M, Yaxley J, Delahunt B. Distal seminal vesicle invasion by prostate adenocarcinoma does not occur in isolation of proximal seminal vesicle invasion or lymphovascular infiltration. Pathology. 2010;42(4):330–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/00313021003767330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreoiu M, Cheng L. Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol. 2010;41(6):781–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2010.02.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, et al. Handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP). Histopathology. 2008;53(3):333–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03102.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sehdev AES, Pan CC, Epstein JI. Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (Stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(5):494–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.24322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cimadamore A, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Added clinical value of whole-mount histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens: a collaborative review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.003.

  11. Montironi R, Lopez Beltran A, Mazzucchelli R, Cheng L, Scarpelli M. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total embedding with large-format histology. Int J Breast Cancer. 2012;2012:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/932784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Mazzucchelli R, Cheng L. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total embedding with whole mounts, with special reference to the Ancona experience. Histopathology. 2011;59(5):1006–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03908.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Montironi R, Scarpelli M, Galosi AB, et al. Total submission of lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: possible clinical significance of large-format histology. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(10):2059–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2014.06.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Montironi R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Joint appraisal of the radical prostatectomy specimen by the urologist and the uropathologist: together, we can do it better. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):951–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zelic R, Giunchi F, Lianas L, et al. Interchangeability of light and virtual microscopy for histopathological evaluation of prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82911-z.

  16. Volavšek M, Henriques V, Blanca A, et al. Digital versus light microscopy assessment of extraprostatic extension in radical prostatectomy samples. Virchows Arch. 2019;475(6) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02666-x.

  17. Volavšek M, Blanca A, Montironi R, et al. Digital versus light microscopy assessment of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy. Virchows Arch. 2018;472(3):451–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-2296-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sighinolfi MC, Eissa A, Spandri V. Positive surgical margin during radical prostatectomy: overview of sampling methods and techniques for the secondary resection of the neurovascolar bundles. BJU Int. 2020;125:656–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. NeuroSAFE Martini-Klinik. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD3BMjyESqo&t=5s.

  20. Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Schlomm T, Chun FK, Currlin E, Walz J, Steuber T, Graefen M, Huland H. Frozen section for the management of intraoperatively detected palpable tumor lesions during nerve-sparing scheduled radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1011–6; discussion 1016–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62:333–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Beyer B, Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, et al. A feasible and time-efficient adaptation of NeuroSAFE for da Vinci robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66:138–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mirmilstein G, Rai BP, Gbolahan O, et al. The neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) approach to nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a British setting – a prospective observational comparative study. BJU Int. 2018;121:854–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Preisser F, Theissen L, Wild P, et al. Implementation of intraoperative frozen section during radical prostatectomy: short-term results from a German tertiary-care center. Eur Urol Focus. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.007.

  25. Vasdev N, Agarwal S, Rai BP, et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate reduces the risk of positive margin whilst ensuring nerve sparing in patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy: first reported UK series. Curr Urol. 2016;9:93–103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. van der Slot MA, den Bakker MA, Klaver S, Kliffen M, Busstra MB, Rietbergen JBW, Gan M, Hamoen KE, Budel LM, Goemaere NNT, Bangma CH, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, van Leenders GJLH. Intraoperative assessment and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens to guide nerve-sparing surgery in prostate cancer patients (NeuroSAFE). Histopathology. 2020;77(4):539–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, Byers A, Löppenberg B, Braun K, Pastor J, Sommerer F, Noldus J, Palisaar RJ. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(2):515–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hatzichristodoulou G, Wagenpfeil S, Weirich G, Autenrieth M, Maurer T, Thalgott M, Horn T, Heck M, Herkommer K, Gschwend JE, Kübler H. Intraoperative frozen section monitoring during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of partial secondary resection of neurovascular bundles and its effect on oncologic and functional outcome. World J Urol. 2016;34(2):229–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dinneen E, Haider A, Allen C, Freeman A, Briggs T, Nathan S, Brew-Graves C, Grierson J, Williams NR, Persad R, Oakley N, Adshead JM, Huland H, Haese A, Shaw G. NeuroSAFE robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for men with localised prostate cancer (NeuroSAFE PROOF): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e028132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dinneen E, Haider A, Grierson J, Freeman A, Oxley J, Briggs T, Nathan S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Persad R, Aning J, Jameson C, Ratynska M, Ben-Salha I, Ball R, Clow R, Allen C, Heffernan-Ho D, Kelly J, Shaw G. NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2021;127(6):676–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fosså SD, Beyer B, Dahl AA, Aas K, Eri LM, Kvan E, Falk RS, Graefen M, Huland H, Berge V. Improved patient-reported functional outcomes after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy by using NeuroSAFE technique. Scand J Urol. 2019;53(6):385–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rocco B, Cimadamore A, Sarchi L, et al. Current and future perspectives of digital microscopy with fluorescence confocal microscope for prostate tissue interpretation: a narrative review. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(3):1569–80. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. MAVIG. Datasheet VivaScope® 2500M-G4 [Internet]. 2018. https://www.vivascope.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/DS_VS-2500M-G4_287_0219-ohne-Mohs.pdf

  34. Bertoni L, Puliatti S, Reggiani Bonetti L, et al. Ex vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy: prostatic and periprostatic tissues atlas and evaluation of the learning curve. Virchows Arch. 2020;476(4):511–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02738-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rocco B, Sighinolfi MC, Sandri M, et al. Digital biopsy with fluorescence confocal microscope for effective real-time diagnosis of prostate cancer: a prospective, comparative study. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.009.

  36. Marenco J, Calatrava A, Casanova J, et al. Evaluation of fluorescent confocal microscopy for intraoperative analysis of prostate biopsy cores. Eur Urol Focus. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.013.

  37. Dinneen EP, Van Der Slot M, Adasonla K, et al. Intraoperative frozen section for margin evaluation during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(4):664–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Eissa A, Zoeir A, Sighinolfi MC, et al. “Real-time” assessment of surgical margins during radical prostatectomy: state-of-the-art. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;18(2):95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.07.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rocco B, Sighinolfi MC, Cimadamore A, et al. Digital frozen section of the prostate surface during radical prostatectomy: a novel approach to evaluate surgical margins. BJU Int. 2020;126(3):336–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rocco B, Sarchi L, Assumma S, et al. Digital frozen sections with fluorescence confocal microscopy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.03.021.

  41. Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, et al. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2012;109(12):1794–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10572.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):753–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT. Intraglandular tumor extent and prognosis in prostatic carcinoma: application of a grid method to prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol. 1990;21(8):799–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0046-8177(90)90048-A.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281(15):1395–400. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.15.1395.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol. 2003;43(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00493-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. McNeal JE. The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate. 1981;2(1):35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990020105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. 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. 2011;24(1):26–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Osunkoya AO, Grignon DJ. Practical issues and pitfalls in staging tumors of the genitourinary tract. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2012;29(3):154–66. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2011.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, et al. Prognostic indicators in patients with seminal vesicle involvement following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;160(3 Pt 1):802–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199809010-00047.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Potter SR, Walsh PC. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology. 2000;56(2):283–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00640-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Epstein JI, Sauvageot J. Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol. 1997;157(1):241–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65336-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, Lawrentschuk N, Zlotta A. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2010;28(2):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.08.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Patel AA, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV. PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(13):1533–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.13.1533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Bernardo Rocco & Maria Chiara Sighinolfi

  2. Polytechnic University of the Marche Hospital, Ancona, Italy

    Alessia Cimadamore

  3. University College London Hospitals, NHS, London, UK

    Haiman Aider

  4. Martini Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Clinic Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Alexander Haese

Authors
  1. Bernardo Rocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessia Cimadamore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haiman Aider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Chiara Sighinolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexander Haese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

    Peter Wiklund

  2. Department of Urology, ORSI Academy, Aalst, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  3. Pediatric Urology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mohan S Gundeti

  4. Urology, Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul Patel

1 Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary Table 1

Results of selected publications assessing the feasibility of a NeuroSAFE protocol to reduce positive surgical margins (PDF 71 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rocco, B., Cimadamore, A., Aider, H., Sighinolfi, M.C., Haese, A. (2022). Histological Evaluations of RADICAL Prostatectomy Specimens. In: Wiklund, P., Mottrie, A., Gundeti, M.S., Patel, V. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-00362-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-00363-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation