Dataset Information

Comparison of two commonly used methods in measurement of cancer volume in prostate biopsy.

ABSTRACT: Currently, cancer volume in prostate biopsy samples is commonly calculated as linear length of carcinoma divided by total core length and reported as percentage involvement. The measurement of the linear length of carcinoma can be problematic particularly when there are two or more separate foci of carcinoma in a single core. There are two most methods commonly used by practicing pathologists. One method is to measure the exact linear extent of each discrete carcinoma foci in millimeters and then add up the linear length (the exact method, E method). The other method is to measure the core length encompassing all carcinoma foci including the intervening benign prostate tissue (glands and/or stroma) (the scattered method, S method). In this study, we used digital pathology to compare the site-specific and overall cancer volumes measured with the E and S methods and analyzed their correlation with the cancer volume in the corresponding prostatectomy specimens. Our results showed that prostate-cancer volumes estimated with both E and S methods on biopsy samples positively correlate with cancer volume at radical prostatectomy. However, the cancer volumes measured with both E and S methods in the majority of biopsy samples were significantly larger than that in prostatectomy (P<0.001). The E method more closely predicts the cancer volume compared to the S method. The overall cancer volume is better than site-specific cancer volume at biopsy in predicting cancer volume at prostatectomy.

SUBMITTER: Patel V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7191135 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of two commonly used methods in measurement of cancer volume in prostate biopsy.

Patel Viharkumar V Hubbard Samuel S Huang Wei W

International journal of clinical and experimental pathology 20200401 4

Currently, cancer volume in prostate biopsy samples is commonly calculated as linear length of carcinoma divided by total core length and reported as percentage involvement. The measurement of the linear length of carcinoma can be problematic particularly when there are two or more separate foci of carcinoma in a single core. There are two most methods commonly used by practicing pathologists. One method is to measure the exact linear extent of each discrete carcinoma foci in millimeters and the ...[more]

PMID: 32355514

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Since most prostatic diseases are associated with the organ's enlargement, evaluation of prostatic size is a main criterion in the diagnosis of prostatic state of health. While enlargement is a non-uniform process, volumetric measurements are believed to be advantageous to any single dimensional parameter for the diagnosis of prostatomegaly. In a previous study, volume was analysed with a slice addition technique (SAT), which was validated as highly accurate. Irrespective of high accuracy, SAT represents a complex and time-consuming procedure, which limits its clinical use. Thus, demand exists for more practical volume assessment methods. In this study, the prostatic volume of 95 canine patients (58 intact males, 37 neutered males) were analysed retrospectively by using the ellipsoid formula (Formula) and an imaging "wrap" function tool (Wrap) to help assess accuracy and applicability. Accuracy was checked against phantom measurements and results were compared to SAT measurements of the same patient pool obtained from a previously published paper. Patients were grouped according to prostatic structure (H?=?homogeneous, I?=?inhomogeneous, C?=?cystic) and volume using the SAT (volume group?=?vg: 1, 2 and 3). RESULTS:High correlation between the Formula or Wrap volume and the phantom volume was found, the values being higher for the Formula. Mean Formula volumes (vg 1: 2.2?cm3, vg 2: 14.5?cm3, vg 3: 109.4?cm3, respectively) were significantly underestimated, while mean Wrap volumes (vg 1: 3.8?cm3, vg 2: 19.5?cm3, vg 3: 159.2?cm3) were statistically equivalent to SAT measurements (vg 1: 3.1?cm3, vg 2: 18.6?cm3, vg 3: 157.2?cm3, respectively). Differences between Formula and SAT volumes ranged from 22.4-31.1%, while differences between Wrap and SAT volumes were highest in small prostates (vg 1: 22.1%) and fell with increasing prostatic size (vg 3: 1.3%). CONCLUSION:The Wrap function is highly accurate, less time-consuming and complex compared to SAT and could serve as beneficial tool for measuring prostatic volume in clinical routine after further validation in future studies. The Formula method cannot be recommended as an alternative for volumetric measurements of the prostate gland due to its underestimation of volumes compared to SAT results.

Project description:Objectives:In an occupational environment, passive sampling could be an alternative to active sampling with pumps for sampling of dust. One passive sampler is the University of North Carolina passive aerosol sampler (UNC sampler). It is often analysed by microscopic imaging. Promising results have been shown for particles above 2.5 µm, but indicate large underestimations for PM2.5. The aim of this study was to evaluate, and possibly improve, the UNC sampler for stationary sampling in a working environment. Methods:Sampling was carried out at 8-h intervals during 24 h in four locations in an open pit mine with UNC samplers, respirable cyclones, PM10 and PM2.5 impactors, and an aerodynamic particle sizer (APS). The wind was minimal. For quantification, two modifications of the UNC sampler analysis model, UNC sampler with hybrid model and UNC sampler with area factor, were compared with the original one, UNC sampler with mesh factor derived from wind tunnel experiments. The effect of increased resolution for the microscopic imaging was examined. Results:Use of the area factor and a higher resolution eliminated the underestimation for PM10 and PM2.5. The model with area factor had the overall lowest deviation versus the impactor and the cyclone. The intraclass correlation (ICC) showed that the UNC sampler had a higher precision and better ability to distinguish between different exposure levels compared to the cyclone (ICC: 0.51 versus 0.24), but lower precision compared to the impactor (PM10: 0.79 versus 0.99; PM2.5: 0.30 versus 0.45). The particle size distributions as calculated from the different UNC sampler analysis models were visually compared with the distributions determined by APS. The distributions were obviously different when the UNC sampler with mesh factor was used but came to a reasonable agreement when the area factor was used. Conclusions:High resolution combined with a factor based on area only, results in no underestimation of small particles compared to impactors and cyclones and a better agreement with the APS's particle size distributions. The UNC sampler had lower precision than the impactors, but higher than the respirable cyclone. The UNC sampler with area factor could be used for PM2.5, PM10 and respirable fraction measurements in this working environment without wind.

Dataset Information

Comparison of two commonly used methods in measurement of cancer volume in prostate biopsy.

Publications

Comparison of two commonly used methods in measurement of cancer volume in prostate biopsy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure