You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Invasive (II)1 Apr 20131630 PROSTATE PATHOLOGY IN PARTIAL VERSUS COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS OF CYSTOPROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS Zhan Tao (Peter) Wang, Emily Filter, Manal Gabril, Jose Gomez, Johnathan Izawa, Joseph Chin, and Madeleine Moussa Zhan Tao (Peter) WangZhan Tao (Peter) Wang London, Canada More articles by this author , Emily FilterEmily Filter London, Canada More articles by this author , Manal GabrilManal Gabril London, Canada More articles by this author , Jose GomezJose Gomez London, Canada More articles by this author , Johnathan IzawaJohnathan Izawa London, Canada More articles by this author , Joseph ChinJoseph Chin London, Canada More articles by this author , and Madeleine MoussaMadeleine Moussa London, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3180AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) in cystoprostatectomy (CP) specimens is 25%. There are no guidelines for the pathological examination of prostates in CP specimens. In our institution, prior to 2000, the prostates were partially submitted whereas currently all prostates are completely submitted. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence, pathological features and clinical outcomes of patients with PCa found on CP specimens with partial versus complete submission. METHODS CP specimens with incidental PCa were identified from our archives between 1990 to 2006. Patients with known metastatic PCa, previous radiotherapy or partial prostatectomy were excluded. A total of 72 patients were found, 51 (complete group) had CP specimens that underwent complete submission versus 21 (partial group) that were partially submitted. Clinical outcomes were retrospectively collected via paper and electronic charts. Each CP specimen was retrieved and reviewed by the pathology department. Clinically significant PCa was defined as: Gleason score > 7, seminal vesical invasion, extraprostatic extension (EPE) and positive surgical margins. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t-test, Fisher's exact test and the Kaplan-Meier method. Significance was set at <0.05. RESULTS Patient demographics between the two groups were similar. Median follow-up for the partial and complete group were 65.7 and 72.9 months respectively. There was a total of 40 (55.5%) clinically significant PCa, of these 13 were in the partial group versus 27 in the complete group. Positive surgical margins at the apex was found in 7% of specimens and EPE was found in 2 versus 11 specimens in the partial and complete group respectively. Invasive urothelial carcinoma was found in 7 specimens in the partial group versus 11 in the complete group. There was one death from metastatic PCa in the complete group and none in the partial group. There was no significant difference in overall mortality between the two groups (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS This study comparing partial versus complete submission of the prostates in CP specimens showed no significant differences in the detection of clinically significant PCa or survival. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e670 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Zhan Tao (Peter) Wang London, Canada More articles by this author Emily Filter London, Canada More articles by this author Manal Gabril London, Canada More articles by this author Jose Gomez London, Canada More articles by this author Johnathan Izawa London, Canada More articles by this author Joseph Chin London, Canada More articles by this author Madeleine Moussa London, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...