Evaluation of margins during radical prostatectomy: confocal microscopy vs frozen section analysis

被引:1
|
作者
Musi, Gennaro [1 ,6 ]
Mistretta, Francesco A. [1 ,6 ]
Ivanova, Mariia [2 ]
de Cobelli, Ottavio [1 ,6 ]
Bellin, Andrea [1 ]
Vago, Gianluca Gaetano [6 ]
Pravettoni, Gabriella [3 ,6 ]
Pala, Oriana [2 ]
Lepanto, Daniela [2 ]
Bottero, Danilo [1 ]
Piccinelli, Mattia Luca [1 ]
Tallini, Matteo [1 ]
Marvaso, Giulia [5 ,6 ]
Ferro, Matteo [1 ]
Petralia, Giuseppe [4 ,6 ]
Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja [5 ,6 ]
Fusco, Nicola [2 ,6 ]
Renne, Giuseppe [2 ]
Luzzago, Stefano [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] European Inst Oncol IEO, IRCCS, Dept Urol, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, I-20141 Milan, Italy
[2] European Inst Oncol IEO, IRCCS, Div Pathol, Milan, Italy
[3] European Inst Oncol IEO, IRCCS, Appl Res Div Cognit & Psychol Sci, Milan, Italy
[4] European Inst Oncol IEO, IRCCS, Dept Med Imaging & Radiat Sci, Precis Imaging & Res Unit, Milan, Italy
[5] European Inst Oncol IEO, IRCCS, Dept Radiat Oncol, Milan, Italy
[6] Univ Milan, Dept Oncol & Hematol Oncol, Milan, Italy
关键词
prostate cancer; fluorescence confocal microscopy; prostate margins; frozen section; radical prostatectomy; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS; PATHOLOGY;
D O I
10.1111/bju.16441
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives To test the performance of ex vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM; Vivascope 2500M-G4), as compared to intra-operative frozen section (IFS) analysis, to evaluate surgical margins during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), with final pathology as the reference standard. Methods Overall, 54 margins in 45 patients treated with RARP were analysed with: (1) ex vivo FCM; (2) IFS analysis; and (3) final pathology. FCM margins were evaluated by two different pathologists (experienced [M.I.: 10 years] vs highly experienced [G.R.: >30 years]) as strongly negative, probably negative, doubtful, probably positive, or strongly positive. First, inter-observer agreement (Cohen's kappa) between pathologists was tested. Second, we reported the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ex vivo FCM. Finally, agreement between ex vivo FCM and IFS analysis (Cohen's kappa) was reported. For all analyses, four combinations of FCM results were evaluated. Results At ex vivo FCM, the inter-observer agreement between pathologists ranged from moderate (kappa = 0.74) to almost perfect (kappa = 0.90), according to the four categories of results. Indeed, at ex vivo FCM, the highly experienced pathologist reached the best balance between sensitivity (70.5%) specificity (91.8%), PPV (80.0%) and NPV (87.1%). Conversely, on IFS analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were, respectively, 88.2% vs 100% vs 100% vs 94.8%. The agreement between the ex vivo FCM and IFS analyses ranged from moderate (kappa = 0.62) to strong (kappa = 0.86), according to the four categories of results. Conclusion Evaluation of prostate margins at ex vivo FCM appears to be feasible and reliable. The agreement between readers encourages its widespread use in daily practice. Nevertheless, as of today, the performance of FCM seems to be sub-par when compared to the established standard of care (IFS analysis).
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Intraoperative evaluation of cortical bony margins with frozen-section analysis
    Oxford, LE
    Ducic, Y
    OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2006, 134 (01) : 138 - 141
  • [42] Utility of frozen section analysis of resection margins during partial nephrectomy
    Kubinski, DJ
    Clark, PE
    Assimos, DG
    Hall, MC
    UROLOGY, 2004, 64 (01) : 31 - 34
  • [43] The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast conservation surgery
    Weber, S
    Storm, FK
    Stitt, J
    Mahvi, DM
    CANCER JOURNAL FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1997, 3 (05): : 273 - 277
  • [44] Ex vivo assessment of surgical margins with confocal laser microscopy during minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy: Our first 50 cases
    Verri, P.
    Gallioli, A.
    Gaya, J. M.
    Uleri, A.
    Territo, A.
    Sanguedolce, F.
    Basile, G.
    Tedde, A.
    Diana, P.
    Huguet, J.
    Robalino, J.
    Algaba, F.
    Arce, Y.
    Palou, J.
    Breda, A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2023, 83
  • [45] Analysis of apical soft tissue margins during radical retropubic prostatectomy
    Shah, O
    Melamed, J
    Lepor, H
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 165 (06): : 1943 - 1948
  • [46] Accuracy of fluorescence confocal microscopy for detecting positive surgical margins during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Blind assessment and interrater agreement
    Almeida-Magana, R.
    Au, M.
    Al-Hammouri, T.
    Mathew, M.
    Dinneen, K.
    Freeman, A.
    Haider, A.
    Vreuls, W.
    Shaw, G.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2024, 85 : S2032 - S2033
  • [47] FROZEN-SECTIONS FOR CONTROL OF TUMORAL MARGINS IN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR CANCER
    PONTHIEU, A
    DELGRANDE, J
    GRANGER, F
    BONNEAU, HP
    IVALDI, A
    JOURNAL D UROLOGIE, 1993, 99 (02) : 67 - 72
  • [48] Nonlinear Microscopy: A Tool to Assess Intraoperative Radical Prostatectomy Margins
    Wu, Yubo
    Yoshitake, Tadayuki
    Cahill, Lucas
    Rosen, Seymour
    Wu, Leo
    Pouli, Dimitra
    Weber, Timothy
    Doshi, Sagar
    Chang, Peter
    Wagner, Andrew A.
    Fujimoto, James
    Sun, Yue
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2022, 102 (SUPPL 1) : 698 - 699
  • [49] Intraoperative resection margins assessment with confocal laser endomicroscopy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Comperat, E.
    Colau, A.
    Lefevre, M.
    Barret, E.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2021, 79 : S595 - S595
  • [50] ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR PEROPERATIVE FROZEN-SECTION ANALYSIS OF PELVIC LYMPH-NODES DURING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    BANGMA, CH
    HOP, WCJ
    SCHRODER, FH
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1995, 76 (05): : 595 - 599