International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes

• Published in: Modern pathology 2011-01, Vol.24 (1), p.39-47
• Main Authors: Berney, Daniel M, Wheeler, Thomas M, Grignon, David J, Epstein, Jonathan I, Griffiths, David F, Humphrey, Peter A, van der Kwast, Theo, Montironi, Rodolfo, Delahunt, Brett, Egevad, Lars, Srigley, John R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 631/1647/1407; 631/250/1620/1616; 692/699/67/589/466; 706/648/180/120; Adenocarcinoma - pathology; Adenocarcinoma - surgery; Humans; Laboratory Medicine; Lymph Nodes - pathology; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; Pathology; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; review; Seminal Vesicles - pathology; Societies, Medical; Specimen Handling - methods
• ISSN: 0893-3952; 1530-0285; 1530-0285
• DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.160

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the infiltration of tumor into the seminal vesicles and regional lymph nodes were coordinated by working group 4. There was a consensus that complete blocking of the seminal vesicles was not necessary, although sampling of the junction of the seminal vesicles and prostate was mandatory. There was consensus that sampling of the vas deferens margins was not obligatory. There was also consensus that muscular wall invasion of the extraprostatic seminal vesicle only should be regarded as seminal vesicle invasion. Categorization into types of seminal vesicle spread was agreed by consensus to be not necessary. For examination of lymph nodes, there was consensus that special techniques such as frozen sectioning were of use only in high-risk cases. There was no consensus on the optimal sampling method for pelvic lymph node dissection specimens, although there was consensus that all lymph nodes should be completely blocked as a minimum. There was also a consensus that a count of the number of lymph nodes harvested should be attempted. In view of recent evidence, there was consensus that the diameter of the largest lymph node metastasis should be measured. These consensus decisions will hopefully clarify the difficult areas of pathological assessment in radical prostatectomy evaluation and improve the concordance of research series to allow more accurate assessment of patient prognosis.