Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: Total or partial embedding?

Histopathology

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 211-216

  Vainer, Ben ^a   Toft, Birgitte Grønkær ^a   Olsen, Karen Ege ^b   Jacobsen, Grete Krag ^a   Marcussen, Niels ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Gleason; Partial embedding; Pathology; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TISSUE SECTION; TISSUE SLICE; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PARAFFIN EMBEDDING; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 79951650676     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03741.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005; 29; 1228-1242.
2. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB et al. Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2006; 13; 57-59.
3. True LD. Surgical pathology examination of the prostate gland. Practice survey by American society of Clinical Pathologists. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1994; 102; 572-579.
4. 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; 333-339.
5. Epstein JI, Algaba F, Allsbrook WC et al. Tumours of the prostate. In Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA eds. Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004; 160-215.
6. Epstein JI. An update on the Gleason grading system. J. Urol. 2010; 183; 433-440.
7. Bostwick DG, Montironi R. Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: therapeutic and prognostic importance. Virchows Arch. 1997; 430; 1-16.
8. Hollenbeck BK, Bassily N, Wei JT et al. Whole mounted radical prostatectomy specimens do not increase detection of adverse pathological features. J. Urol. 2000; 164; 1583-1586.
9. Cohen MB, Soloway MS, Murphy WM. Sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. How much is adequate? Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1994; 101; 250-252.
10. Srigley J. Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006; 130; 303-317.
11. Kim K, Pak PJ, Ro JY et al. Limited sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens with excellent preservation of prognostic parameters of prostate cancer. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2009; 133; 1278-1284.