Analysis of the mechanism of discrepant nuclear morphometric results comparing preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens

Urology

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 342-345

  Kanamaru, Hiroshi ^a   Zhang, Yan Hu ^a   Takahashi, Masahiko ^a   Nakamura, Naohiro ^a   Ishida, Hirokazu ^a   Akino, Hironobu ^a   Muranaka, Koji ^a   Okada, Kenichiro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FUKUI   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CELL NUCLEUS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE HYPERTROPHY; PROSTATECTOMY; SAMPLING; TECHNIQUE;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; CELL NUCLEUS; EPITHELIAL CELLS; HISTOCYTOLOGICAL PREPARATION TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MALE; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA;

EID: 0033915617     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00583-5     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Catalona W.J., Stein A.J., Fair W.R. Grading errors in prostatic needle biopsies relation to the accuracy of tumor grade in predicting pelvic lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 127:1982;919-922.
2. Bostwick D.G. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 18:1994;796-803.
3. Djavan B., Kadesky K., Klopukh B., et al. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needle poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 33:1998;261-270.
4. Carlson G.D., Calvanese C.B., Kahane H., et al. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 51:1998;525-529.
5. Mohler J.L., Metts J.C., Zhang X.Z., et al. Nuclear morphometry in automatic biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens of prostatic carcinoma a comparison. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 16:1994;415-420.
6. Fujikawa K., Sasaki M., Aoyama T., et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity in prostate cancer demonstrated by volume-weighted mean nuclear volume. APMIS. 105:1997;322-328.
7. Zhang Y.H., Kanamaru H., Oyama N., et al. Comparison of nuclear morphometric results between needle biopsy and surgical specimens from patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 54:1999;763-766.
8. Zhang Y.H., Kanamaru H., Oyama N., et al. Prognostic value of nuclear morphometry on needle-biopsy from patients with prostate cancer is volume-weighted mean nuclear volume superior to other morphometric parameters? Urology. 55:2000;377-381.
9. Gundersen H.J., Jensen E.B. Stereological estimation of the volume-weighted mean volume of arbitrary particles observed on random sections. J Microsc. 138:1985;127-142.
10. Sorenson F.B. Biology of disease. Quantitative analysis of nuclear size for objective malignancy grading a review with emphasis on new, unbiased stereologic methods. Lab Invest. 66:1992;4-18.
11. Blom J.H., Kate F.J., Schroeder F.H., et al. Morphometrically estimated variation in nuclear size. A useful tool in grading prostatic cancer. Urol Res. 18:1990;93-99.
12. Diamond D.A., Berry S.J., Jewett H.J., et al. A new method to assess metastatic potential of human prostate cancer relative nuclear roundness. J Urol. 128:1982;729-734.
13. Partin A.W., Walsh A.C., Pitcock R.V., et al. A comparison of nuclear morphometry and Gleason grade as a predictor of prognosis in stage A2 prostate cancer a critical analysis. J Urol. 142:1989;1254-1258.
14. Partin A.W., Steinberg G.D., Pitcock R.V., et al. Use of nuclear morphometry, Gleason histologic scoring, clinical stage, and age to predict disease-free survival among patients with prostate cancer. Cancer. 70:1992;161-168.
15. Vesalainen S., Lipponen P., Talja M., et al. Nuclear morphometry is of independent prognostic value only in T1 prostatic adenocarcinomas. Prostate. 27:1995;110-117.
16. Arima K., Sugimura Y., Hioki T., et al. Stereologically estimated mean nuclear volume of prostatic cancer is a reliable prognostic parameter. Br J Cancer. 76:1997;234-237.
17. Fujikawa K., Sasaki M., Arai Y., et al. Prognostic criteria in patients with prostate cancer Gleason score versus volume-weighted mean nuclear volume. Clin Cancer Res. 3:1997;613-618.
18. Sorenson F.B. Objective histopathological grading of cutaneous malignant melanomas by stereological estimation of nuclear volume. Prediction of survival and disease free period. Cancer. 63:1989;1784-1789.
19. Sasaki M., Sorenson F.B., Fukuzawa S., et al. Objective histopathology in the prognostic evaluation of patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Cancer. 72:1993;2470-2483.
20. Kanamaru H., Sasaki M., Miwa Y., et al. Prognostic value of sarcomatoid histology and volume-weighted mean nuclear volume in renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 83:1998;222-226.
21. True L.D. Surgical pathology examination of the prostate gland practice survey by American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol. 102:1994;572-579.
22. Ruijter E.T., Miller G.J., Aalders T.W., et al. Rapid microwave-stimulated fixation of entire prostatectomy specimens. J Pathol. 183:1997;369-375.