The Journal of Urology
Volume 183, Issue 5 , Pages 1808-1815 , May 2010

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

  • Justin C. Sherwin

      Affiliations

    • TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia
    • ,
  • George Mirmilstein

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
    • ,
  • John Pedersen

      Affiliations

    • TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia
    • ,
  • Nathan Lawrentschuk

      Affiliations

    • Urology Department, University Health Network, University of Toronto and Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Ave. 3-130, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2M9, Canada (telephone: +1-416-946-4501, extension 4955; FAX: +1-416-946-6590)
    • ,
  • Damien Bolton

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
    • ,
  • John Mills

      Affiliations

    • TissuPath Pty Ltd. and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University School of Medicine, Melbourne, Australia

Received 21 September 2009

References 

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

 Study received institutional review board approval.

 Supported by a research grant from TissuPath Pty Ltd.

 Supplementary material for this article can be obtained at http://www.tissupath.com.au/table-6-from-j-urology.asp.

 For another article on a related topic see page 2062.

PII: S0022-5347(10)00018-2

doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.017

The Journal of Urology
Volume 183, Issue 5 , Pages 1808-1815 , May 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution