Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Value of frozen section biopsies during radical prostatectomy: significance of the histological results

  • Review
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To review the evidence about frozen sections during radical prostatectomy (RP) and its ability to decrease the incidence of positive margins, the impact on PSA postoperatively and the significance of residual benign prostatic cells after prostatectomy.

Methods

The information for this review was compiled by searching the Pubmed database. We used Mesh Terms “Prostatectomy” and “Prostatic Neoplasms” and we added “frozen sections” and/or “hyperplasic cells” and/or “benign cells” and/or “positive margins”. Furthermore, we review the articles referenced in those studies and editorials letters.

Results

Several groups have studied the performance of frozen section during RP to try and assess the risk of positive margins intraoperatively. The controversial sites where they should be performed are the apex, the dorsolateral zones and the bladder neck. They have been performed routinely or when the surgeon decides it, depending on the preoperative or intraoperative findings.

Conclusions

At the present time there is no standardisation in the number, the site and the type of patient where this procedure should be done. The improvement in functional outcomes and biochemical control is not proven.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stamey TA, Villers AA, McNeal JE, Link PC, Freiha FS (1990) Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: importance of the apical dissection. J Urol 143:1166–1172, discussion 1172–1163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR (2003) Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 169:157–163. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64058-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71:3582–3593. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19930601)71:11<3582::AID-CNCR2820711120>3.0.CO;2-Y

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Catalona WJ, Smith DS (1994) 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1837–1842

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (1994) Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol 152:1831–1836

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT (1995) Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 154:1818–1824. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66792-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, Zattoni F (2008) Eau guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Schlomm T, Chun FK, Currlin E, Walz J, Steuber T, Graefen M, Huland H (2006) Frozen section for the management of intraoperatively detected palpable tumor lesions during nerve-sparing scheduled radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49:1011–1016. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.035, discussion 1016–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsuboi T, Ohori M, Kuroiwa K, Reuter VE, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT (2005) Is intraoperative frozen section analysis an efficient way to reduce positive surgical margins? Urology 66:1287–1291. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goharderakhshan RZ, Sudilovsky D, Carroll LA, Grossfeld GD, Marn R, Carroll PR (2002) Utility of intraoperative frozen section analysis of surgical margins in region of neurovascular bundles at radical prostatectomy. Urology 59:709–714. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01539-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cangiano TG, Litwin MS, Naitoh J, Dorey F, deKernion JB (1999) Intraoperative frozen section monitoring of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 162:655–658. doi:10.1097/00005392-199909010-00003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Paul R, Hoppmann M, van Randenborgh H, Kubler H, Alschibaja M, Gunther M, Hartung R (2004) Residual benign prostatic glands at the urethrovesical anastomosis after radical retropubic prostatectomy: prediction and impact on disease outcome. Eur Urol 46:321–326. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2004.04.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wood DP Jr, Peretsman SJ, Seay TM (1995) Incidence of benign and malignant prostate tissue in biopsies of the bladder neck after a radical prostatectomy. J Urol 154:1443–1446. doi:10.1097/00005392-199510000-00051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alsikafi NF, Brendler CB (1998) Surgical modifications of radical retropubic prostatectomy to decrease incidence of positive surgical margins. J Urol 159:1281–1285. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63581-X

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS (1999) Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 54:682–688. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00204-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Villers A, Stamey TA, Yemoto C, Rischmann P, McNeal JE (2000) Modified extrafascial radical retropubic prostatectomy technique decreases frequency of positive surgical margins in t2 cancers <2 cm(3). Eur Urol 38:64–73. doi:10.1159/000020254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillonneau B, El Fettouh H, Fromont G, Validire P, Vallancien G (2002) Pathological results of neurovascular bundle preservation during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 167(suppl):343

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Schwalenberg T, Winkler M, Dietel A, Liatsikos E (2007) Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 53:931–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith RC, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Brendler CB (1996) Extended followup of the influence of wide excision of the neurovascular bundle(s) on prognosis in men with clinically localized prostate cancer and extensive capsular perforation. J Urol 156:454–457. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65877-4, discussion 457–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS, Walsh PC (1991) Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol 145:998–1002

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Lowe FC (1987) Potency following radical prostatectomy with wide unilateral excision of the neurovascular bundle. J Urol 138:823–827

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Epstein JI (1990) Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection. The significance of margins designated as negative, closely approaching, and positive. Am J Surg Pathol 14:626–632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fromont G, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Validire P, Vallancien G (2003) Intraoperative frozen section analysis during nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study. J Urol 170:1843–1846. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000092081.71167.34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fromont G, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Prapotnich D, Validire P, Vallancien G (2004) Impact of margin size on the incidence of local residual tumor after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 172:1845–1847. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000140266.51848.92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lepor H, Kaci L (2004) Role of intraoperative biopsies during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 63:499–502. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2003.10.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dillenburg W, Poulakis V, Witzsch U, de Vries R, Skriapas K, Altmansberger HM, Becht E (2005) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the value of intraoperative frozen sections. Eur Urol 48:614–621. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dorschner W, Biesold M, Schmidt F, Stolzenburg JU (1999) The dispute about the external sphincter and the urogenital diaphragm. J Urol 162:1942–1945. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68074-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Shah O, Melamed J, Lepor H (2001) Analysis of apical soft tissue margins during radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 165:1943–1948. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66247-7, discussion 1948–1949

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Djavan B SI, Hruby S, Susani M, Haitel A, Eremad M, Mostofi MK, McLeos D, Marberger M (2000) Benign prostatic glands in the surgical margin of radical prostatectomies: redefining PSA nadir. J Urol 163:A624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Djavan B, Milani S, Fong YK (2005) Benign positive margins after radical prostatectomy means a poor prognosis–pro. Urology 65:218–220. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lepor H, Chan S, Melamed J (1998) The role of bladder neck biopsy in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with preservation of the bladder neck. J Urol 160:2435–2439. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62205-5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ravery V (1999) The significance of recurrent PSA after radical prostatectomy: benign versus malignant sources. Semin Urol Oncol 17:127–129

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Boccon-Gibod L, Ravery V, Vordos D, Toublanc M, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L (1998) Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions. J Urol 160:1383–1385. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62543-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ravery V, De la Taille A, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Hermieu JF, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L (1996) Prostate specimen reevaluation in patients with organ confined prostate cancer and postoperative biological recurrence. J Urol 155:1981–1982. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66068-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servicio de Urología Hospital Universtario La Fe, Avenida Campanar 21, 46009, Valencia, Spain

    Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus & Fernando Jiménez-Cruz

  2. Urology Department, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Robert Rabenalt, Minh Do & Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg

  3. Urology Department, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK

    Sunjay Jain

  4. Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

    Evangelos Liatsikos

  5. Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Krankenhaus St Josef, Regensburg, Germany

    Roman Ganzer

  6. Institute of Pathology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Lars-Christian Horn

  7. Department of Urology, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    Martin Burchardt

Authors
  1. Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Rabenalt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sunjay Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Minh Do
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evangelos Liatsikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roman Ganzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lars-Christian Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martin Burchardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fernando Jiménez-Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus.

Additional information

M. Ramírez-Backhaus and R. Rabenalt have contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramírez-Backhaus, M., Rabenalt, R., Jain, S. et al. Value of frozen section biopsies during radical prostatectomy: significance of the histological results. World J Urol 27, 227–234 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0360-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0360-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation