2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accuracy of the LaserSAFE technique for detecting positive surgical margins during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: blind assessment and inter‐rater agreement analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction and objectives

          Fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM) is a new imaging modality capable of generating digital microscopic resolution scans of fresh surgical specimens, and holds potential as an alternative to frozen section (FS) analysis for intra‐operative assessment of surgical margins. Previously, we described the LaserSAFE technique as an application of FCM for margin assessment in robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the Histolog® scanner. This study describes the accuracy and inter‐rater agreement of FCM imaging compared to corresponding paraffin‐embedded analysis (PA) among four blinded pathologists for the presence of positive surgical margins (PSM).

          Materials and methods

          RARP specimens from patients enrolled in the control arm of the NeuroSAFE PROOF study (NCT03317990) were analysed from April 2022 to February 2023. Prostate specimens were imaged using the Histolog® scanner before formalin fixation and PA. Four trained assessors, blinded to PA, reviewed and analysed FCM images of the posterolateral prostatic surface.

          Results

          A total of 31 prostate specimens were included in the study. PA per lateral side of the prostate identified 11 instances of positive margins. Among the four histopathologists included in our study, FCM achieved a sensitivity of 73–91 and specificity of 94–100% for the presence of PSM. Fleiss’ Kappa for inter‐rater agreement on PSM was 0.78 (95% confidence interval = 0.64–0.92), indicating substantial agreement.

          Conclusion

          This blinded analysis of FCM versus PA among histopathologists with different experience levels demonstrated high accuracy and substantial inter‐rater agreement for diagnosing PSM. This supports the role of the FCM as an alternative to FS.

          Abstract

          The LaserSAFE technique, based on fluorescence confocal microscopy to assess margins in radical prostatectomy, shows high accuracy in detecting positive surgical margins compared to paraffin‐embedded analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

          Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

              Despite the large diffusion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), literature and data on the oncologic outcome of RARP are limited. Evaluate lymph node yield, positive surgical margins (PSMs), use of adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival following RARP and perform a cumulative analysis of all studies comparing the oncologic outcomes of RARP and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). A systematic review of the literature was performed in August 2011, searching Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. A free-text protocol using the term radical prostatectomy was applied. The following limits were used: humans; gender (male); and publications dating from January 1, 2008. A cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v.4.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 11.0 SE software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). We retrieved 79 papers evaluating oncologic outcomes following RARP. The mean PSM rate was 15% in all comers and 9% in pathologically localized cancers, with some tumor characteristics being the most relevant predictors of PSMs. Several surgeon-related characteristics or procedure-related issues may play a major role in PSM rates. With regard to BCR, the very few papers with a follow-up duration >5 yr demonstrated 7-yr BCR-free survival estimates of approximately 80%. Finally, all the cumulative analyses comparing RARP with RRP and comparing RARP with LRP demonstrated similar overall PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; p=0.19; RARP vs LRP: OR: 1.12; p=0.47), pT2 PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: OR: 1.25; p=0.31; RARP vs LRP: OR: 0.99; p=0.97), and BCR-free survival estimates (RARP vs RRP: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.9; p=0.526; RARP vs LRP: HR: 0.5; p=0.141), regardless of the surgical approach. PSM rates are similar following RARP, RRP, and LRP. The few data available on BCR from high-volume centers are promising, but definitive comparisons with RRP or LRP are not currently possible. Finally, significant data on cancer-specific mortality are not currently available. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                r.magana@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Histopathology
                Histopathology
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2559
                HIS
                Histopathology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0309-0167
                1365-2559
                15 October 2024
                February 2025
                : 86
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/his.v86.3 )
                : 433-440
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Targeted Intervention University College London UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Urology University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                [ 3 ] Centre for Medical Imaging University College London UK
                [ 4 ] Department of Histopathology University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                [ 5 ] Department of Histopathology Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital Nijmegen the Netherlands
                [ 6 ] LabPON Hengelo the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Address for correspondence: R Almeida‐Magana, Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK. e‐mail: r.magana@ 123456ucl.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3437-1649
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4977-531X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2377-0545
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5854-740X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1613-5503
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2417-1109
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4309-3257
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6661-6017
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3480-2100
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5031-3791
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7005-4245
                Article
                HIS15336 HISTOP-07-24-0551.R1
                10.1111/his.15336
                11707496
                39403832
                99aafdb4-077f-4156-8c2b-a75d56d83288
                © 2024 The Author(s). Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 September 2024
                : 20 July 2024
                : 22 September 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 8, Words: 5434
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Research for Patient Benefit
                Award ID: PB‐PG‐1216‐20013
                Funded by: The Rosetrees Trust
                Award ID: 566412
                Funded by: WEISS Health Challenge 2020
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2025
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.5.2 mode:remove_FC converted:08.01.2025

                Pathology
                fluorescence confocal microscopy,frozen section analysis,margin assessment,prostate cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article