Tumor Volume in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens Assessed by Digital Image Analysis Software Correlates With Other Prognostic Factors

Journal of Urology

Volumn 183, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1808-1815

  Sherwin, Justin C ^a   Mirmilstein, George ^b   Pedersen, John ^a   Lawrentschuk, Nathan ^c   Bolton, Damien ^b   Mills, John ^a  

^a Tissupath Pty Ltd   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

computer assisted; image processing; prostate; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasm; tumor burden

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER INVASION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERINEURIUM; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SEMINAL VESICLE; TUMOR VOLUME;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SOFTWARE; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 77950624388     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.017     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Wingo P.A., Ries L.A., Parker S.L., et al. Long-term cancer patient survival in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7 (1998) 271
2. Watson R.B., Civantos F., and Soloway M.S. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 48 (1996) 80
3. McNeal J.E. Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer 23 (1969) 24
4. Stamey T.A., Freiha F.S., McNeal J.E., et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 71 (1993) 933
5. Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., Yemoto C.M., et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281 (1999) 1395
6. Vollmer R.T. Percentage of tumor in prostatectomy specimens: a study of American veterans. Am J Clin Pathol 131 (2009) 86
7. Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., Freiha F.S., et al. Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 139 (1988) 1235
8. McNeal J.E., Villers A.A., Redwine E.A., et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66 (1990) 1225
9. McNeal J.E., Villers A.A., Redwine E.A., et al. Capsular penetration in prostate cancer. Significance for natural history and treatment. Am J Surg Pathol 14 (1990) 240
10. Tefilli M.V., Gheiler E.L., Tiguert R., et al. Should Gleason score 7 prostate cancer be considered a unique grade category?. Urology 53 (1999) 372
11. Pierorazio P.M., Kinnaman M.D., Wosnitzer M.S., et al. Prostate volume and pathologic prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urology 70 (2007) 696
12. McNeal J.E. Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 23 (1992) 258
13. Freiha F., and Redwine E. Volume of detected disease and ability to effect cure by radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 7 (1989) 45
14. Sakr W.A., Tefilli M.V., Grignon D.J., et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity?. Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56 (2000) 730
15. Eastham J.A., Kattan M.W., Riedel E., et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 170 (2003) 2292
16. Swindle P., Eastham J.A., Ohori M., et al. Do margins matter?. The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 179 (2008) S47
17. Vickers A.J., Bianco F.J., Serio A.M., et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (2007) 1171
18. Boorjian S.A., and Blute M.L. Surgical management of high risk prostate cancer: the Mayo Clinic experience. Urol Oncol 26 (2008) 530
19. Evans A.J., Henry P.C., Van der Kwast T.H., et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 32 (2008) 1503
20. Hall G.S., Kramer C.E., and Epstein J.I. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. A comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am J Surg Pathol 16 (1992) 315
21. Epstein J.I., Pizov G., and Walsh P.C. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71 (1993) 3582
22. Grossfeld G.D., Tigrani V.S., Nudell D., et al. Management of a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy: decision analysis. J Urol 164 (2000) 93
23. Swanson G.P., Hussey M.A., Tangen C.M., et al. Predominant treatment failure in postprostatectomy patients is local: analysis of patterns of treatment failure in SWOG 8794. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007) 2225
24. Bolla M., van Poppel H., Collette L., et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 366 (2005) 572