Handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (Histopathology, 2008)
Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Griffiths DF, Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Varma M, Montironi R
AIMS: To survey current European practices in handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) was organized for the dissemination of information, survey studies and research collaborations. Contact data of uropathologists were collected from 321 pathology laboratories in 15 West European countries. In the first ENUP survey, 67.6% (217/321) of the members replied to a web-based questionnaire. Some practices were adopted by a large majority, e.g. inking of the specimen (96.6%), Gleason grading (99.5%), stratifying extraprostatic extension (EPE) according to extent (88.2%), reporting TNM stage (88.6%) and reporting location of positive margins (98%). As many as 71.6% of respondents always embedded the entire prostate and only 10.8% always practised partial embedding. Whole mounts were routinely used by 37.5% and standard blocks by 55.5%. Among areas with variable routines were methods to define focal versus extensive EPE and methods to quantify margin positivity, probably reflecting that the optimal method has yet to be determined.
CONCLUSIONS: Some practices are almost universally adopted in Europe, whereas others still need to be standardized. The results of the study may be helpful when judging what recommendations are reasonable to issue.