Suppr超能文献

根治性前列腺切除术标本全器官处理与系统取样的对比分析:病理结果与生化复发风险。

Comparative analysis of whole mount processing and systematic sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: pathological outcomes and risk of biochemical recurrence.

机构信息

Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37205, USA.

出版信息

J Urol. 2010 Oct;184(4):1334-40. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.041. Epub 2010 Aug 17.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Whole mount processing is more resource intensive than routine systematic sampling of radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. We compared whole mount and systematic sampling for detecting pathological outcomes, and compared the prognostic value of pathological findings across pathological methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included men (608 whole mount and 525 systematic sampling samples) with no prior treatment who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between January 2000 and June 2008. We used univariate and multivariate analysis to compare the pathological outcome detection rate between pathological methods. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test were used to compare the prognostic value of pathological findings across pathological methods.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the whole mount and the systematic sampling groups in detecting extraprostatic extension (25% vs 30%), positive surgical margins (31% vs 31%), pathological Gleason score less than 7 (49% vs 43%), 7 (39% vs 43%) or greater than 7 (12% vs 13%), seminal vesicle invasion (8% vs 10%) or lymph node involvement (3% vs 5%). Tumor volume was higher in the systematic sampling group and whole mount detected more multiple surgical margins (each p <0.01). There were no significant differences in the likelihood of biochemical recurrence between the pathological methods when patients were stratified by pathological outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for estimated tumor volume and multiple margins whole mount and systematic sampling yield similar pathological information. Each method stratifies patients into comparable risk groups for biochemical recurrence. Thus, while whole mount is more resource intensive, it does not appear to result in improved detection of clinically important pathological outcomes or prognostication.

摘要

目的

全器官处理比常规系统取样根治性前列腺切除术标本更耗费资源。我们比较了全器官和系统取样在检测病理结果方面的效果,并比较了不同病理方法对病理发现的预后价值。

材料和方法

我们纳入了 2000 年 1 月至 2008 年 6 月期间在范德比尔特大学医学中心接受根治性前列腺切除术且无前期治疗的男性(608 例全器官和 525 例系统取样样本)。我们使用单变量和多变量分析比较了不同病理方法在检测病理结果方面的差异。Kaplan-Meier 曲线和对数秩检验用于比较不同病理方法对病理发现的预后价值。

结果

在检测前列腺外延伸(25% vs 30%)、阳性手术边缘(31% vs 31%)、病理 Gleason 评分小于 7(49% vs 43%)、7(39% vs 43%)或大于 7(12% vs 13%)、精囊侵犯(8% vs 10%)或淋巴结受累(3% vs 5%)方面,全器官组和系统取样组之间没有显著差异。系统取样组的肿瘤体积较高,全器官组检测到更多的多个手术边缘(均 p <0.01)。当根据病理结果对患者进行分层时,不同病理方法在生化复发的可能性方面没有显著差异。

结论

除了估计肿瘤体积和多个边缘外,全器官和系统取样都能提供相似的病理信息。每种方法都能将患者分为具有类似生化复发风险的亚组。因此,虽然全器官处理更耗费资源,但似乎并没有提高对临床重要病理结果的检测或预后的判断。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验