Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
How Much Tissue Sampling Is Required When Unsuspected Minimal Prostate Carcinoma Is Identified on Transurethral Resection? Kiril Trpkov, MD, FRCPC; Jenny Thompson, BSc; Andrew Kulaga, MD, FRCPC; Asli Yilmaz, MD, FRCPC ● Context.—When minimal prostate cancer is detected in the initial transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) sample, it is uncertain how extensively the remaining tissue should be sampled for accurate grading and staging. Objective.—To identify whether additional partial or complete sampling is required to accurately evaluate TURP samples with minimal cancer (stage T1a). Design.—We prospectively examined all TURP samples in our institution during 1 year. All specimens were sampled randomly in 6 cassettes. When minimal cancer was found, we performed additional partial sampling (1 block per 5 g of remaining tissue), followed by complete submission of all remaining tissue. All samples were evaluated separately to identify possible changes in Gleason score and tumor volume. We performed a cost analysis for the additional tissue sampling. Results.—Of 747 TURP samples evaluated on the initial 6 cassettes, 125 (16.7%) contained prostate cancer. Minimal cancer involving less than 5% of sampled tissue was found in the initial submission in 26 (3.5%) patients. Additional partial examination required 3.5 blocks per case (median; range, 1–23), while complete processing required an additional 5.5 blocks per case (median; range, 2–25). Initial Gleason scores and tumor volumes were not changed in any of the studied cases after evaluating the additional partial and complete samples. In our laboratory, we calculated a cost of $4336 per year for the additional sampling of TURPs with minimal cancer ($1681 for partial and $2655 for complete sampling). Conclusions.—When minimal cancer was found in the first 6 cassettes of transurethral resections, additional partial and complete sampling did not change the initial Gleason scores and tumor volumes. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:1313–1316) T However, controversy exists as to how much additional sampling is required to ensure an accurate tumor volume estimate and to ascertain the Gleason score in the resected specimen when unsuspected cancer is identified in a TURP sample.4–11 Patients with incidental tumors found on histology involving 5% or less of resected tissue (stage T1a) require no further invasive treatment, particularly in patients older than age 60 years.12 The reported clinical disease progression rate of T1a tumors is low and varies from 8% to 27%.13–18 Older studies, before the prostate-specific antigen era, show that only 4% of patients with T1a tumors will have disease progression in 4 years, while in 16% to 25% the tumors will progress in 8 to 10 years after the TURP.13,14,19 In contrast, patients with T1b tumors, which involve more than 5% of the resected tissue, are considered at much higher risk for disease progression (33% in 1 study)14 and usually require additional treatment.20 Therefore, accurate substaging of T1 disease is important and mandates different patient care. Studies performed prior to the prostate-specific antigen era showed that 90% to 100% of the incidental tumors of both stages T1a and T1b will be detected if 5 to 8 blocks or 12 g of tissue are submitted and indicated that it is not necessary to put through the whole tissue.5–7 However, some early studies advocated complete tissue submission in all cases.4 In this study, we questioned whether there is a need for additional sampling when incidental minimal carcinoma ransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still a common urologic procedure that is primarily used in current practice for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The quantity of tissue chips received in the pathology laboratory for examination varies. Recommendations by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) require submission of specimens weighing 12 g or less in their entirety, usually in 6 to 8 cassettes.1–2 For specimens greater than 12 g, the initial 12 g should be submitted, and 1 cassette for every additional 5 g may be submitted. The CAP Cancer Committee recently added a recommendation that ‘‘if an unsuspected carcinoma is found in the tissue submitted and it involves 5% or less of the tissue examined, the remaining tissue is generally submitted for microscopic examination.’’ 1 Most recently, this approach was seconded by a pathology expert group for the Association of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology.3 Accepted for publication February 8, 2008. From the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Anatomical Pathology, Rockyview General Hospital, Calgary Laboratory Services and University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article. Reprints: Kiril Trpkov, MD, FRCPC, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Anatomical Pathology, Rockyview General Hospital, Calgary Laboratory Services and University of Calgary, 7007 14th St SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2V 1P9 (e-mail: [email protected]. ca). Arch Pathol Lab Med—Vol 132, August 2008 Sampling of Minimal Prostate Cancer on TURP—Trpkov et al 1313 involving 5% or less of the tissue is detected in the initial specimen in contemporary practice. This prospective study sought to investigate whether additional partial or complete submission of the remaining tissue chips will change the initial Gleason score and tumor volume, that is, change the stage from T1a to T1b. Lastly, since the cost of the additional sampling is also an issue, we performed a cost analysis for the submission of additional partial and complete TURP samples in our laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three pathologists prospectively examined all TURP specimens in our centralized urologic pathology practice during 1 year (June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007). All specimens were routinely sampled by pathologists’ assistants according to our departmental protocol. Of 747 TURP specimens evaluated during the study period by the initial 6-cassette submission, 125 (16.7%) exhibited prostate cancer. Tumor volume was assessed as a percentage of tissue involved by marking the areas of involvement and then combining these foci to estimate the percentage of the submitted tissue involved by cancer. More than 5% tumor involvement in the initial sample was found in 99 (79.2%) of the 125 specimens containing cancer. Some of these patients with nonminimal cancer had known or suspected cancer and TURP was performed due to retention or obstruction symptoms. These cases represented stage T1b tumors, and additional sampling was not performed, according to the current CAP recommendations and previous studies.1,2,5–7,10 In 26 TURP specimens the initial random sample of 6 cassettes contained minimal carcinoma involving 5% or less of the sampled tissue. Patients with unsuspected cancer typically presented clinically with symptoms of retention, bladder stones, recurrent urinary tract infections, or gross hematuria or had undergone unsuccessful medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate-specific antigen testing was not routinely performed in these older patients because they were not suspected to have cancer prior to the procedure. In this scenario, the previous routine practice among the pathologists in our institution varied from complete sampling to variable partial sampling, estimated either on the whole tissue or on the remaining tissue. In all 26 cases, an additional partial and complete sampling was performed in a systematic fashion. Partial sampling entailed an additional random sample of 1 block for every 5 g of remaining tissue, which was followed by additional complete sampling that included submission of all residual tissue. To identify possible changes in the Gleason score and the tumor volume, these parameters were separately evaluated in the initial and in the additional partial and complete samples. Pathologists involved in the study recorded the information for each case prospectively on score sheets, which were collected and tabulated. Cost analysis, based on the technical and the pathologist fees, was performed to calculate the cost of the additional TURP sampling in our laboratory. Pathologists’ time for slide review of TURP specimens was estimated at 1 minute per slide. The cost for 1 minute of pathologist time was $3.12, based on the hourly rate in our institution. The technical component of the cost was estimated at $15 per slide and included pathologist assistants’ time for grossing and histotechnologists’ time for embedding, cutting, and staining, as well as the cost of the reagents. RESULTS The study group of 26 TURP specimens represented 20.8% of cases containing cancer and 3.5% of all TURP cases processed in our hospital during 1 year. Patient demographics, documented clinical history on the requisition, and TURP sampling data are presented in Table 1. All patients with minimal cancer included in this study were older (median age, 68 years); only 2 patients were younger than 60 years. All patients with minimal cancer were clinically unsuspected to have cancer prior to the 1314 Arch Pathol Lab Med—Vol 132, August 2008 Table 1. Demographics and Sampling Variables for Patients With Minimal Cancer on Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Variable No. of patients 26 Age, y Median/mean (range) 68/70 (56–85) Clinical history of patients No history Benign prostatic hyperplasia Microinvasive bladder cancer Bladder stones Tissue weight, g Median/mean (range) 13 11 1 1 24.8/33.5 (10.2–125) Blocks/case, No. Median/mean/mode (range) Weight/block, g Median/mean (range) 16/18.7/10 (10–45) 1.7/1.7 (1.0–3.3) Table 2. Volume of Cancer and Gleason Scores in the Initial Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) Samples and in the Additional Partial and Complete TURP Samples Initial Samples Additional Partial Samples Additional Complete Samples No. of blocks Median/mean (range) 6/6 (6) 3.5/4.9 (1–23) 5.5/8 (2–25) Volume of carcinoma, % 0 1–5 ⬎5 0 26 0 13 13 0 9 17 0 Gleason score 5 6 7 3 22 1 2 10 1 1 15 1 Variable procedure. The median number of cassettes for complete sampling was 16, and all cases required 10 or more cassettes for complete tissue processing. In 16 cases (62%), 15 or more blocks were sampled. After submitting the initial 6 blocks, partial examination of the specimen required 3.5 blocks (median; range, 1–23) (Table 2). An additional 5.5 blocks (median; range, 2–25) were necessary for complete processing of the remaining tissue. Seven (27%) of 26 cases showed no additional tumor in the remaining tissue. Additional tumors were identified in 19 (73%) of 26 cases: in both additional partial and complete samples in 11 cases, only in the additional partial samples in 2 cases, and only in the additional complete samples in 6 cases. When cancer foci were found in the additional partial and complete samples, they were always found in less than 5% of the respective samples. Thus, after the additional partial and complete tissue evaluation, the Gleason scores and the percentage of initially estimated tumor volumes remained unchanged in all cases, that is, none of the cases were changed from stage T1a to T1b. Gleason scores of 5, 6, and 7 were reported in the initial specimens in 3 (12%), 22 (84%), and 1 (4%) patients, respectively. In 1 patient, Gleason score 7 (4 ⫹ 3) was found in less than 5% of the Sampling of Minimal Prostate Cancer on TURP—Trpkov et al Table 3. Cost Analysis for Tissue Samples in Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Specimens With Minimal Cancer Sample Initial sample Additional partial sample Initial ⫹ partial Additional complete sample Initial ⫹ partial ⫹ complete Partial ⫹ complete Median Cost/Sample, $ Total Cost, $ 72.16 52.46 124.62 78.72 203.34 131.18 2046.72 1681.25 3727.97 2655.21 6383.18 4336.46 tissue in all 3 samples (initial, additional partial, and additional complete sample). This tumor was found incidentally in an 81-year-old patient with benign prostatic hyperplasia and a history of colon cancer. Although some may not regard this tumor as stage T1a, the current TNM system does not stipulate that Gleason score should alter the clinical stage in a TURP specimen. Median costs per case for the additional partial and complete samples were $52.46 and $78.72, respectively (Table 3). In our laboratory, we calculated a total cost of $4336.46 per year for the additional sampling of TURP specimens with minimal cancer ($1681.25 for the additional partial and $2655.21 for the additional complete sampling). This cost analysis reflects our practice scenario; in institutions where grossing of TURP specimens is done by a pathologist, this additional cost should also be considered. COMMENT Current clinical classification for the primary prostate tumor (T), according to the TNM staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer, defines tumors of stage T1 as clinically inapparent tumors, neither palpable nor visible by imaging.21 Stage T1 is subdivided into T1a, which includes incidental tumors found on histology in 5% or less of resected tissue, and T1b, which includes tumors identified in more than 5% of the resected tissue. The T1a and T1b substages of the TNM staging system correspond to stages A1 (ⱕ5% TURP chips positive) and A2 (⬎5% TURP chips positive) of the earlier WhitmoreJewett system. This distinction is relevant because patients with T1a tumors do not require additional treatment and have a significantly better prognosis than patients with T1b tumors, who usually require additional treatment.13–20 The most recent CAP recommendations indicate that if unsuspected minimal (T1a) carcinoma is detected in the examined tissue, all remaining tissue should be submitted for microscopic examination.1 In this study, subsequent partial and complete sampling had no additional yield beyond the initial 6 blocks in establishing correctly the final T1 substage and the Gleason score. In all studied cases, regardless of the patient age and weight of the specimen, Gleason score and overall tumor percentage remained unchanged. Although tumor was found in the additional partial and complete samples in 73% (19/26) of cases, additionally detected tumor volumes did not alter the stage from T1a to T1b in any of the cases. To ensure safe practice and for quality assurance, if minimal (T1a) cancer is found in the initial specimen, a reasonable sampling approach of the residual tissue may include 1 cassette per 5 g of the remaining chips. According to our study, this approach Arch Pathol Lab Med—Vol 132, August 2008 should be adequate, regardless of the patient age, weight of the submitted tissue, or the Gleason score found in the initial random specimen. One early study found that complete submission of all TURP specimens made a clinically significant difference for accurate staging.4 However, this study used an older classification system and examined 2 different patient populations during different periods. In contrast, several subsequent studies found that the odds of correctly staging a tumor after random partial examination are significantly high.5–7,10 Vollmer6 determined that after submission of 10 blocks, 97% of tumors would be discovered. Rohr7 found that if 8 blocks were submitted, 90% and 100% of A1 and A2 carcinomas, respectively, would be detected, and concluded that complete sampling of TURP specimens would not alter the original diagnosis and was unnecessary. He demonstrated by statistical analysis that 99.93% and 100% of A2 carcinomas would be detected by submission of 5 and 8 blocks, respectively. Murphy et al5 found that sampling 12 g of the randomly selected chips detected almost 90% of all incidental carcinomas and determined that all clinically significant prostatic carcinomas (T1b tumors) would be detected if only 6 g of chips were examined microscopically. Similarly, our study did not identify a significant tumor volume variation in the additional partial and complete samples, which indicates that tumor foci are distributed uniformly in the sampled chips. McDowell et al10 recommended complete submission of remaining tissue only in cases where T1a tumor, but not T1b tumor, is detected in the initial 8 blocks. This approach was justified based on 1 case upstage (of 34 studied), the discordance between the initial and the subsequent Gleason scores, and the low incidence of unsuspected T1a tumors requiring more than 9 blocks for complete sampling. Humphrey and Walther9 and Humphrey11 suggested that partial sampling may be sufficient for patients older than 60 years, while in younger patients, in whom tumors of stage T1a may progress, they recommended complete specimen sampling. In our study, we initially submitted 6 cassettes (median, 1.7 g per block) for all TURP specimens, which would approximate 10 to 12 g of tissue. This approach provided a high probability that most T1a and all T1b cancers would be diagnosed in the initial examination. Our aim was to investigate the yield of additional tissue sampling only when T1a disease is encountered. We have restricted our study to stage T1a, and not T1b, tumors because previous studies have shown that downstage would not occur in patients with T1b tumors if additional tissue is sampled.5–7,10 Despite the small chance of tumor upstaging or changing the Gleason score, these were not documented in any of our patients. Therefore, additional examination of the remaining tissue in this study was not contributory when T1a tumor was detected in the initial 6 cassettes. We have not included the initial Gleason scores in stratifying stage T1 disease. However, of 26 cases only 1 showed Gleason score 7, which underscores the rarity of high Gleason grade cancers in TURP specimens containing minimal cancers. To our knowledge, no contemporary study has considered the cost implications of conducting partial and complete sampling, although they have been addressed in some previous studies.5,6,8,22 Although some authors claim that the cost of complete sampling should not be a concern when minimal carcinoma is incidentally detected, our Sampling of Minimal Prostate Cancer on TURP—Trpkov et al 1315 study found that complete sampling is unnecessary when unsuspected minimal cancer is found on TURP. We calculated that a median of $78.72 per case and $2655.21 per year would be saved in our laboratory if only partial sampling was implemented in this instance. Although the cost analysis for our laboratory may not be identical with other centers, the time tradeoff and the general cost for complete sampling are not justified. A limitation of this study is the small sample size, as only 26 specimens were identified during 1 year containing unsuspected carcinomas of stage T1a. However, our study was prospective and was conducted in a centralized urologic pathology setting. The low incidence of 3.5% of cases with minimal cancer (stage T1a) in TURP specimens in this study is comparable to the estimated incidence of 4.7% in TURPs performed for presumed benign prostatic hyperplasia.10 The small sample size of this study requires confirmation by studies performed in other institutions before changing the current CAP practice guidelines. In summary, this study demonstrates that when minimal carcinoma was incidentally detected in the initial 6 cassettes of submitted TURP tissue, significant carcinomas that had not been adequately sampled initially were not identified upon further investigation. The initial random sample was sufficient to accurately identify the Gleason score and the tumor volume in the entire resected tissue. For quality assurance, partial sampling of 1 block for 5 g of the residual tissue should be considered a reasonable option. If only partial additional sampling was performed in TURP specimens upon finding less than 5% of tissue involved by cancer in the initial sample, cost savings in our institution would have been $78.72 per case and a total of $2655.21 per year. References 1. CAP Cancer Committee. Reporting on Cancer Specimens: Case Summaries and Background Documentation. Northfield, Ill: College of American Pathologists; 2005:genitourinary, prostate 15–16. 2. CAP Cancer Committee. Reporting on Cancer Specimens: Protocols and 1316 Arch Pathol Lab Med—Vol 132, August 2008 Case Summaries. Northfield, Ill: College of American Pathologists; 2000:genitourinary, prostate 9. 3. Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, Humphrey P. Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1305–1309. 4. Newman AJ Jr, Graham MA, Carlton CE Jr, Lieman S. Incidental carcinoma of the prostate at the time of transurethral resection: importance of evaluating every chip. J Urol. 1982;128:948–950. 5. Murphy WM, Dean PJ, Brasfield JA, Tatum L. Incidental carcinoma of the prostate: how much sampling is adequate? Am J Surg Pathol. 1986;10:170–174. 6. Vollmer RT. Prostate cancer and chip specimens: complete versus partial sampling. Hum Pathol. 1986;17:285–290. 7. Rohr LR. Incidental adenocarcinoma in transurethral resection of the prostate: partial versus complete microscopic examination. Am J Surg Pathol. 1987; 11:53–58. 8. Vollmer RT. Tissue sampling to detect incidental carcinoma of prostate. In: Damjanov I, Cohen AH, Mills SE, Young RH. Progress in Reproductive and Urinary Tract Pathology. Vol 1. New York, NY: Field & Wood Medical Publishers; 1990:91–100. 9. Humphrey PA, Walther PJ. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate, part I: tissue sampling considerations. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;99:746–759. 10. McDowell PR, Fox WM, Epstein JI. Is submission of remaining tissue necessary when incidental carcinoma of the prostate is found on transurethral resection? Hum Pathol. 1994;25:493–497. 11. Humphrey PA. Prostate tissue handling and sampling: transurethral prostatectomy (TURP). In: Humphrey PA, ed. Prostate Pathology. Chicago, Ill: American Society of Clinical Pathology; 2005:40–44. 12. Lowe BA. Management of stage T1a prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 1996;14:178–182. 13. Blute ML, Zincke H, Farrow GM. Long-term follow-up of young patients with stage A adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1986;136:840–843. 14. Epstein JI, Paull G, Eggleston JC, et al. Prognosis of untreated stage A1 prostatic carcinoma: a study of 94 cases with extended follow-up. J Urol. 1986; 136:837–839. 15. Lowe BA, Listrom MB. Incidental carcinomas of the prostate: an analysis of the predictors of progression. J Urol. 1988;140:1341–1347. 16. Thompson IM, Zeidman EJ. Extended follow-up of stage A1 carcinomas of the prostate. Urology. 1989;33:455–458. 17. Roy CR, Horne D, Raife M, et al. Incidental carcinoma of the prostate: long-term follow-up. Urology. 1990;36:210–213. 18. Cheng L, Neumann RM, Blute ML, et al. Long-term follow-up of stage T1a prostate cancer [letter]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1105–1107. 19. Cantrell BB, DeKlerk DP, Eggleston JC, et al. Pathological factors that can influence prognosis in stage A prostatic cancer: the influence of extent versus grade. J Urol. 1981;125:516–520. 20. van Andel G, Vleeming R, Kurth K, et al. Incidental carcinoma of the prostate. Semin Surg Oncol. 1995;11:36–45. 21. Sobin LH, Wittekind C, for the International Union Against Cancer [UICC], eds. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6th ed. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 2002:184–187. 22. Eble JN, Tejada E. Cost implications of sampling strategies for prostatic transurethral resection specimens: analysis of 549 cases [abstract]. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;85:382–383. Sampling of Minimal Prostate Cancer on TURP—Trpkov et al