Prostate needle biopsy examination by means of virtual microscopy

Pathology Research and Practice

Volumn 207, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 366-369

  Chargari, Cyrus ^a   Comperat, Eva ^b   Magné, Nicolas ^c   Védrine, Lionel ^a   Houlgatte, Alain ^a   Egevad, Lars ^d   Camparo, Philippe ^a  

^a University of Paris Descartes   (France)

^b PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Department of Radiation Oncology   (France)

^d INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

Author keywords

Gleason score; Needle biopsy; Prostate; Virtual microscopy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER INFILTRATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MICROSCOPY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PREDICTION; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATECTOMY; TISSUE SECTION; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FRANCE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MICROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 79958718247     PISSN: 03440338     EISSN: 16180631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2011.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Gleason D.F. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 1966, 50:125-128.
2. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N., et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1997, 277:1445-1451.
3. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B., et al. Combined modality staging of prostate carcinoma and its utility in predicting pathologic stage and postoperative prostate specific antigen failure. Urology 1997, 49:23-30.
4. Hayashi N., Urashima M., Kuruma H., et al. The maximum tumor length in biopsy cores as a predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008, 101:175-180.
5. Freedland S.J., Csathy G.S., Dorey F., Aronson W.J. Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score. J. Urol. 2002, 167:516-520.
6. Gancarczyk K.J., Wu H., McLeod D.G., et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology 2003, 61:589-595.
7. Romer D.J., Yearsley K.H., Ayers L.W. Using a modified standard microscope to generate virtual slides. Anat. Rec. B: New Anat. 2003, 272:91-97.
8. Chantrain C.F., De Clerck Y.A., Groshen S., McNamara G. Computerized quantification of tissue vascularization using high-resolution slide scanning of whole tumor sections. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2003, 51:151-158.
9. Helin H., Lundin M., Lundin J., et al. Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. Hum. Pathol. 2005, 36:381-386.
10. Ho J., Parwani A.V., Jukic D.M., Yagi Y., Anthony L., Gilbertson J.R. Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum. Pathol. 2006, 37:322-331.
11. Krupinski E.A., Tillack A.A., Richter L., et al. Eye-movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides: implications for medical education and differences with experience. Hum. Pathol. 2006, 37:1543-1556.
12. Rodriguez-Urrego P.A., Cronin A.M., Al-Ahmadie H.A., Gopalan A., Tickoo S.K., Reuter V.E., Fine S.W. Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies. Hum. Pathol. 2011, 42:68-74.
13. Montironi R., Vela Navarrete R., Lopez-Beltran A., Mazzucchelli R., Mikuz G., Bono A.V. Histopathology reporting of prostate needle biopsies. 2005 update. Virchows Arch. 2006, 449:1-13.
14. Gleason D.F. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. Tannenbaum Med. Urologic Pathology: The Prostate 1977, Lea and Feibiger, Philadelphia.
15. Ohori M., Kattan M.W., Koh H., et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2004, 171:1844-1849.
16. Kattan M.W., Eastham J.A., Wheeler T.M., et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J. Urol. 2003, 170:1792-1797.
17. Lundin M., Lundin J., Isola J. Virtual microscopy. J. Clin. Pathol. 2004, 57:1250-1251.
18. Helin H.O., Lundin M.E., Laakso M., Lundin J., Helin H.J., Isola J. Virtual microscopy in prostate histopathology: simultaneous viewing of biopsies stained sequentially with hematoxylin and eosin, and alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase/p63 immuno-histochemistry. J. Urol. 2006, 175:495-499.
19. Fine J.L., Grzybicki D.M., Silowash R., et al. Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Hum. Pathol. 2008, 39:564-572.
20. Ozdamar S.O., Sarikaya S., Yildiz L., Atilla M.K., Kandemir B., Yildiz S. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 1996, 28:73-77.
21. Descazeaud A., Rubin M.A., Allory Y., et al. What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer?. Eur. Urol. 2005, 48:911-915.