Processing radical prostatectomies: an alternate-slice method is comparable with total embedding

Abstract

Receipt of radical prostatectomy specimens in the histopathology laboratory is quite common in academic centers and community hospitals. Despite numerous processing protocols, there is not an accepted standard method of processing. There are potential disadvantages of total sampling of the prostate; however, other alternatives have not been proven to show significant advantages. We present a partial sampling method (alternate slice) and compare its results to the total embedding method. Consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens were selected to compare both histologic sampling methods. The primary method of sampling was total embedding. Subsequently, alternate slice sections from the anterior, middle, and posterior thirds of the gland were reviewed. Seminal vesicle, bladder neck, and margins were similarly evaluated in both methods. Total sampling resulted in an average of 30 blocks compared with 18 in the alternate slice method. Gleason correlation was 87.5%; extraprostatic extension correlation was 97.9%. There was complete correlation in margin status and perineural invasion. Pathologic staging correlation was 97.9%. In summary, this alternate slice method compares very favorably with the total embedding method.