The neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) approach to nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a British setting - a prospective observational comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) technique in a British setting in men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) . PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed our prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent RALP between November 2008 and February 2017. We examined preoperative pathological and functional parameters, intraoperative nerve sparing (NS), postoperative histology, as well as functional and oncological follow-up. We compared those who had a NeuroSAFE approach and those who had NS without NeuroSAFE. We also compared all the RALPs before and after the introduction of NeuroSAFE. Statistical analysis was done using the two-tailed t-test and chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: This single surgeon series included 417 RALPs, including 120 NeuroSAFEs. The NeuroSAFE cohort had a greater proportion of D'Amico high-risk disease (30.8% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001), higher Gleason scores and higher pT stage compared to the non-NeuroSAFE NS cohort. After the introduction of NeuroSAFE, more preoperatively potent men underwent bilateral NS with pT2 disease (84.6% vs 66.3%, P = 0.002) and more overall NS were performed in patients with pT3 disease (65.1% vs 36.7%, P = 0.012). Overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were lower in the NeuroSAFE cohort compared to those who had NS without NeuroSAFE (9.2% vs 17.8%, P = 0.04). The 12-month potency rates were also higher in the NeuroSAFE cohort for both bilateral (77.3% vs 50.9%, P = 0.009) and unilateral (70.6% vs 40%, P = 0.04) NS. Pad-free continence was also higher in the NeuroSAFE group (85.7% vs 70.9%, P = 0.019), but there was no significant difference between those who were wearing ≤1 safety pad. Although we only had short-term oncological follow-up, it did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Adoption of NeuroSAFE allowed us to offer NS in higher risk patients, whilst reducing PSM rates and at the same time improving potency at 12 months.

Macrocystic ductal adenocarcinoma, a good outcome for a rare cancer in an elderly comorbid patient.

Ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive prostate cancer often presenting late due to low serum PSA. A variant presentation of ductal adenocarcinoma occurs with formation of large cystic structures in the prostate, often associated with lower urinary tract symptoms. We present a case illustrating investigation and successful management of a macrocytic ductal carcinoma in a 90 year old patient.

Tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens assessed by digital image analysis software correlates with other prognostic factors.

PURPOSE: Digital image analysis software to review histopathology specimens is advancing uropathology by objectivity and reproducibility. Subjective pathologist assessed prostate tumor volume calculations correlate with known prognostic factors at radical prostatectomy. We ascertained whether image analysis software calculations of prostate tumor volume correlate with such prognostic factors, particularly positive surgical margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate tumor volume was calculated using digital image analysis software in 851 sequential radical prostatectomy specimens. Results were correlated with clinicopathological data by logistic regression. RESULTS: Median prostate tumor volume was 2.2 cc (IQR 0.9-3.8). Median peripheral and transition zone tumor volume was 1.9 and 0.6 cc, respectively. Transition zone tumors were noted in 236 specimens (27.8%) and positive surgical margins occurred in 244 (28.7%). Tumors with extensive positive surgical margins had larger image analysis software assessed prostate tumor volume (p = 0.029) and peripheral zone volume (p = 0.007) than those with only focal positive surgical margins. On univariate analysis positive surgical margin tumors were larger and had seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension, perineural invasion and higher preoperative prostate specific antigen than those without positive surgical margins (each p <0.001). A linear relationship existed between image analysis software determined prostate tumor volume, and increasing tumor stage, Gleason score and prostate specific antigen (p for trend <0.001). On multivariate analysis tumor volume and tumor volume as a percent of prostate volume predicted positive surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate tumor volume determined objectively by image analysis software correlates with positive surgical margins, as do prognostic variables such as extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, perineural invasion, peripheral zone volume and Gleason score greater than 7. Objective digital image analysis software assessment appears to be a valid form to determine prostate tumor volume at radical prostatectomy. It is a useful adjunct to other histopathological analyses.