China Oncology ›› 2014, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (11): 824-829.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3969.2014.11.005

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparative analysis of whole mount processing and conventional sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens

CHANG Kun1, YANG Xiao-qun2, WANG Chao-fu2, GAN Hua-lei2, ZHENG Ai-hua2, YANG Jun2, DAI Bo1, QU Yuan-yuan1, ZHANG Hai-liang1, SHI Guo-hai1, ZHU Yao1, YE Ding-wei1   

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China; 2. Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
  • Online:2014-11-30 Published:2015-05-05
  • Contact: YE Ding-wei E-mail: dwyeli@163.com

Abstract:

Background and purpose: To perform whole mount technique in the diagnosis of the prostate cancer could provide orientation to the specimen. Whole mount technique has great value in pathologic diagnosis and morphological research. However, limited by the specimen-making technique, shortage of equipment and heavy workload, this technique has not been generally accepted in China. The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of whole mount technique in the diagnosis of the prostate cancer by comparing the clinical and pathological variables between whole mount patients and conventional ones after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: A total number of 229 patients whole mount RP specimens were recruited in the study from Dec. 2012 to Feb. 2014. The control group included 393 patients specimens which underwent conventional sampling from Jan. 2010 to Jun. 2012. We compared the clinical and pathological variables between the groups, including age, preoperative PSA level, methods of diagnosis, preliminary diagnostic Gleason score, clinical T stage, postoperative Gleason score, pathological T stage, positive surgical margin, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and pelvic lymph node metastasis. Results: Two groups shared similar preoperative parameters. Also there was no significant difference between the whole mount and the conventional sampling groups in postoperative Gleason score, pathological T stage, extraprostatic extension and pelvic lymph node metastasis. However, positive surgical margin and seminal vesicle invasion rates were much higher in the whole mount group than the control one and both of the differences reached statistical significance (26.2% vs 17.6%, 23.1% vs 17.0%; P=0.010, 0.025) Conclusion: After compared the clinical and pathological variables, we could conclude that whole mount technique has prevalence in the diagnosis of the positive surgical margin and seminal vesicle invasion compared with the conventional sampling technique. Thus, whole mount technique should be strongly recommended in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Key words: Prostate cancer, Whole mount technique, Radical prostatectomy