Handling and reporting of pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens in prostate and bladder cancer: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00669806%3A_____%2F19%3A10402100" target="_blank" >RIV/00669806:_____/19:10402100 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11140/19:10402100

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Thd6w5N1tF" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Thd6w5N1tF</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.13818" target="_blank" >10.1111/his.13818</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Handling and reporting of pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens in prostate and bladder cancer: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Aims Pathological evaluation of lymphadenectomy specimens plays a pivotal role in accurate lymph node (LN) staging. Guidelines standardising the gross handling and reporting of pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in prostate (PCa) and bladder (BCa) cancer are currently lacking. This study aimed to establish current practice patterns of PLND evaluation among pathologists. Methods and results A web-based survey was circulated to all members of the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP), comprising 29 questions focusing on the macroscopic handling, LN enumeration and reporting of PLND in PCa and BCa. Two hundred and eighty responses were received from pathologists throughout 23 countries. Only LNs palpable at grossing were submitted by 58%, while 39% routinely embedded the entire specimen. Average LN yield from PLND was &gt;= 10 LNs in 56% and LNs in 44%. Serial section(s) and immunohistochemistry were routinely performed on LN blocks by 42% and &lt;1% of respondents, respectively. To designate a LN microscopically, 91% required a capsule/subcapsular sinus. In pN+ cases, 72% reported the size of the largest metastatic deposit and 94% reported extranodal extension. Isolated tumour cells were interpreted as pN1 by 77%. Deposits identified in fat without associated lymphoid tissue were reported as tumour deposits (pN0) by 36% and replaced LNs (pN+) by 27%. LNs identified in periprostatic fat were included in the PLND LN count by 69%. Conclusion This study highlights variations in practice with respect to the gross sampling and microscopic evaluation of PLND in urological malignancies. A consensus protocol may provide a framework for more consistent and standardised reporting of PLND specimens.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Handling and reporting of pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens in prostate and bladder cancer: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology

Popis výsledku anglicky

Aims Pathological evaluation of lymphadenectomy specimens plays a pivotal role in accurate lymph node (LN) staging. Guidelines standardising the gross handling and reporting of pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in prostate (PCa) and bladder (BCa) cancer are currently lacking. This study aimed to establish current practice patterns of PLND evaluation among pathologists. Methods and results A web-based survey was circulated to all members of the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP), comprising 29 questions focusing on the macroscopic handling, LN enumeration and reporting of PLND in PCa and BCa. Two hundred and eighty responses were received from pathologists throughout 23 countries. Only LNs palpable at grossing were submitted by 58%, while 39% routinely embedded the entire specimen. Average LN yield from PLND was &gt;= 10 LNs in 56% and LNs in 44%. Serial section(s) and immunohistochemistry were routinely performed on LN blocks by 42% and &lt;1% of respondents, respectively. To designate a LN microscopically, 91% required a capsule/subcapsular sinus. In pN+ cases, 72% reported the size of the largest metastatic deposit and 94% reported extranodal extension. Isolated tumour cells were interpreted as pN1 by 77%. Deposits identified in fat without associated lymphoid tissue were reported as tumour deposits (pN0) by 36% and replaced LNs (pN+) by 27%. LNs identified in periprostatic fat were included in the PLND LN count by 69%. Conclusion This study highlights variations in practice with respect to the gross sampling and microscopic evaluation of PLND in urological malignancies. A consensus protocol may provide a framework for more consistent and standardised reporting of PLND specimens.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30109 - Pathology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Histopathology

ISSN

0309-0167

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

74

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

6

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

844-852

Kód UT WoS článku

000465227500006

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85063687588