Macroscopy of specimens from the genitourinary system.

Macroscopic specimen examination is often critical for accurate histopathology reporting but has generally received insufficient attention and may be delegated to inexperienced staff with limited guidance and supervision. This review discusses issues around macroscopic examination of some common urological specimens; highlighting findings that are critical for patient management and others that are clinically irrelevant. Macroscopic findings are of limited value in completely submitted radical prostatectomy specimens but may be critical in orchidectomy specimens where identification of focal non-seminomatous components can significantly impact patient management. The maximum tumour dimension is often an important prognostic indicator, but specimen dimensions are generally of little clinical utility. Specimens should be carefully examined and judiciously sampled to identify clinically important focal abnormalities such as sarcomatoid change in a renal cell carcinoma and a minor non-seminomatous component in a predominant testicular seminoma. Meticulous macroscopic examination is key as less than 0.2% of the specimen (or macroscopically abnormal area) would be histologically examined even if the entire specimen/abnormal area is submitted for microscopic examination. Retroperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection specimens for testicular cancer must be handled very differently from other lymph nodal block dissections. Current sampling protocols for transurethral resection of prostate specimens that are based on pre-MRI era data need to be reconsidered because they were specifically designed to detect occult prostate cancer, which would amount to histological cancer screening. Prostatic sampling of cystoprostatectomy specimens should be directed at accurately staging the known bladder cancer rather than detection of incidental prostate cancer.

Impact of the diagnostic label for a low-risk prostate lesion: protocol for two online factorial randomised experiments.

INTRODUCTION: Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).