4.6 Article

Implementation of a map in radical prostatectomy specimen allows visual estimation of tumor volume

期刊

EJSO
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 352-357

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.11.004

关键词

mapping; prognosis; prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen; tumor volume

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Tumor volume is one (if the best documented prognostic factors for prostate cancer. There are several methods to gain this important parameter but unfortunately most of the clinicians in the world do not get this information in their routine practice from the pathologist. We developed a standardized method to handle radical prostatectomy specimens including a special form of mapping in order to document relevant morphological data. The aim of this study was to investigate if our model of mapping prostate cancer, which we use in routine practice, may serve for visual estimation of tumor volume. Methods: We estimated the tumor volume of prostate cancer by visual estimation of 350 maps of radical prostatectomy specimens and correlated these data with established prognostic parameters and clinical outcome. Results: Significant correlations between tumor volumes, as obtained from our mapping, and known prognostic parameters such as preoperative serum levels of prostatic specific antigen, loss of differentiation, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, and margins were found. In a multivariate analysis, only Gleason score and tumor stage were shown to be independent prognostic parameters. Discussion: We demonstrate that mapping of prostate cancer is more than a simple method of documentation but may serve as a method for visual estimation of tumor volume of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. This method can further be used for a visual documentation of the tumor stage independent of changes in the TNM classification. The method is inexpensive and practicable and can therefore be applied in routine surgical pathology. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据