Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases

Lau, Sean K.; Weiss, Lawrence M.; Kawachi, Mark H.; Yoshida, Jeffrey; Ruel, Christopher; Nelson, Rebecca A.; Crocitto, Laura E.; Wilson, Timothy G.

doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0131-6

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As well as volume/size, the weight of the prostatic specimen has also gained attention lately as Peiguo et al showed a relationship with low median prostate weight (49g) resulting in a significantly higher positive margin rate and incidence of extraprostatic extension (14) in a large prospective study of a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy series. In their study it was 1.523 times more likely to have positive margins with small weight prostates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ARTICLE INFO ______________________________________________________________ ______________________Introduction: To investigate and highlight the effect of formaldehyde induced weight reduction in transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and radical robotically-assisted prostatectomy (RALP) specimen as a result of standard chemical fixation. Materials and Methods: 51 patients were recruited from January 2013 to June 2013 who either underwent a TURP (n=26) or RALP (n=25). Data was collected prospectively by the operating surgeon who measured the native, unfixed histology specimen directly after operation. The specimens were fixed in 10% Formaldehyde Solution BP and sent to the pathology laboratory where after sufficient fixation period was re-weighed.Results: Overall mean age 64.78 years, TURP mean age 68.31 years RALP mean age 61.12years. We found that the overall prostatic specimen (n=51) weight loss after fixation was a mean of 11.20% (3.78 grams) (p≤0.0001). Subgroup analysis of the native TURP chips mean weight was 16.15 grams and formalin treated mean weight was 14.00 grams (p≤0.0001). Therefore, TURP chips had a mean of 13.32 % (2.15 grams) weight loss during chemical fixation. RALP subgroup unfixed specimen mean weight was 52.08 grams and formalin treated mean weight was 42.60 grams (p≤0.0001), a 19.32 % (9.48grams) mean weight reduction. Conclusion: It has not been known that prostatic chips and whole human radical prostatectomy specimen undergo a significant weight reduction. The practical significance of the accurate prostate weight in patient management may be limited, however, it is agreed that this should be recorded correctly, as data is potential interest for research purposes and vital for precise documentation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In view of this, it was agreed that the true weight of the prostate gland can only be determined if the seminal vesicles are detached from the prostate gland before weighing ( Table 1). The weight of the prostate gland is often correlated with the radiologically estimated weight, 21,22 and although the practical significance of this in patient management may be limited, it was agreed that this should recorded, as these data were of potential interest for research purposes. The survey found that 76% of respondents weighed the prostate with the seminal vesicles attached; yet, at the meeting, there was consensus that the prostate weight without the seminal vesicles should be recorded.…”

Section: Specimen Weight and Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling

Samaratunga¹,

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the handling and processing of radical prostatectomy specimens were coordinated by working group 1. Most uropathologists followed similar procedures for fixation of radical prostatectomy specimens, with 51% of respondents transporting tissue in formalin. There was also consensus that the prostate weight without the seminal vesicles should be recorded. There was consensus that the surface of the prostate should be painted. It was agreed that both the prostate apex and base should be examined by the cone method with sagittal sectioning of the tissue sample. There was consensus that the gland should be fully fixed before sectioning. Both partial and complete embedding of prostates was considered to be acceptable as long as the method of partial embedding is stated. No consensus was determined regarding the necessity of weighing and measuring the length of the seminal vesicles, the preparation of whole mounts rather than standardized blocks and the methodology for sampling of fresh tissue for research purposes, and it was agreed that these should be left to the discretion of the working pathologist.

show abstract

“…The findings showed that the PSM rate was significantly lower in the robot-assisted, than in the open RP, whereas no significant difference in the PSM rates was observed between laparoscopic RP and robot-assisted RP (Koizumi et al, 2018). A prospective study also reached a similar conclusion that robotic RP was equally effective with laparoscopic RP (Chu et al, 2009). These two studies also concluded that in the open RP and laparoscopic RP, the most common position of PSM is the apex, whereas the most common position in the robot-assisted RP is the bladder neck and the posterolateral, correspondingly.…”

Section: F I G U R Ementioning

confidence: 81%

“…And then, we eliminated 153 studies based on screening the titles and abstract. After full‐text assessing of 45 studies were performed, eventually 22 studies (Allaparthi, Hoang, Dhanani, & Tuerk, ; Butow et al, ; Caliskan, Kaba, Koca, & Ozturk, ; Chang, Moon, Gianduzzo, & Eden, ; Chu et al, ; Descazeaud, Zerbib, Vieillefond, Debre, & Peyromaure, ; Foley, Bott, Thomas, Parkinson, & Kirby, ; Freedland et al, ; Galfano et al, ; Goetzl, Krebill, Griebling, & Thrasher, ; Hong et al, ; Kim et al, ; Labanaris et al, ; Lallas et al, ; Levinson et al, ; Marchetti, Shikanov, Razmaria, Zagaja, & Shalhav, ; Msezane et al, ; Olsson et al, ; Pettus et al, ; Yadav et al, ; Yasui et al, ; Zorn et al, ) were enrolled in our meta‐analysis. The characteristics of them were introduced in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, a number of studies with the association of PW in PSMs rates have reported, but findings were no consensus. Some previous studies indicated that patients with lower PWs had a significant increase in PSMs (Chu et al, ; Labanaris, Zugor, & Witt, ; Zorn et al, ). However, other two studies did not find the significant association between PW and PSMs (Olsson et al, ; Yasui et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The association between prostate weight and positive surgical margins in prostate cancer: A meta‐analysis

Cao

Peng

et al. 2020

Andrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been some conflicting claims whether larger prostate weight (PW) reduces the risk of positive surgical margins (PSMs). This study aims to examine the associations between PW and PSMs. PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane library were systematically retrieved. Relative risks (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were synthesised utilising random‐effect models. Ultimately, 22 cohort studies met criteria were enrolled in this meta‐analysis, of which 18 studies reporting the RR of the highest VS lowest category of PW yielded the combined RR of PSMs of 0.61 (95% CI 0.50–0.74). Subgroup analysis showed that geographic region and surgical modalities were considered as potential confounders of influence of PW on PSMs. The nonlinear dose–response relationship demonstrated that PSM risk decreased by 1% (RR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.98–0.99) for every one gram increment in PW. This study suggests PW has a negative association with risk of PSMs, and having a appropriate PW is very important.

show abstract

Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases

Abstract: We conclude that low prostate weight may be a determinant of a higher recurrence rate and more aggressive disease.

Cited by 5 publications

References 37 publications

Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen

Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling

The association between prostate weight and positive surgical margins in prostate cancer: A meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About