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

Abstract

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.

Artificial intelligence‐based versus manual assessment of prostate cancer in the prostate gland: a method comparison study

“…The general overestimation of median volume on automated measurements compared to median weight of the specimens could potentially be explained by the fact that the volume estimates represent in vivo whereas the weight measures represent bloodless ex vivo conditions. The removal of the seminal vesicles in the preparation of the pathology specimen as well as the chemical fixation of the prostate could also affect the results (Lukacs et al, 2014).…”

Prostate volume measurement by multiparametric magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound: comparison with surgical specimen weight

“…One of the problems in the literature related to the comparison of the volumes obtained by tests with the weight recorded after prostatectomy is the fact that formalin fixation could promote weight loss, decreasing the true in vivo weight. (20) On the other hand, the true volume of the prostate could be overestimated by the fact that, during resection of the specimen, the prostate is usually not completely isolated from the seminal vesicles and even from the periprostatic fat. Considering there may be fragments of these structures influencing in surgical specimen weight and affecting an adequate correspondence between the volumes obtained by the tests and by the specimen.…”

Day-case surgery is possible in the majority of men undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate – a report on over 1000 cases

“…Our weights in the day-case group are slightly lower than in other series (although these consider pre-fixed samples which are known to be heavier). [20][21][22] Some studies suggest little correlation between resected weight and functional outcome 23,24 and we consider our discharge rate at four months to be an indicator of success.…”