Abbas Basiri, Navid Masoumi, Ali Amani-Beni, Sobhan Sabzi, Mahmoud Parvin, Atoosa Gharib, Nasser Shakhssalim, Alireza Lashay, Mohammad Hadi Radfar, Mohammadamin Omrani
{"title":"肾部分切除术术中宏观评价与肿瘤床缘永久切片分析的一致性:一项前瞻性研究。","authors":"Abbas Basiri, Navid Masoumi, Ali Amani-Beni, Sobhan Sabzi, Mahmoud Parvin, Atoosa Gharib, Nasser Shakhssalim, Alireza Lashay, Mohammad Hadi Radfar, Mohammadamin Omrani","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.12.270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the concordance between the intraoperative visual assessment of the tumor bed for completeness of resection following partial nephrectomy and the permanent section analysis of biopsies taken from the tumor bed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing partial nephrectomy at 2 university hospitals were prospectively enrolled. R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of tumors were calculated according to preoperative imaging. Masses were resected either by enucleation or with a safety margin. To ensure accurate excisional biopsy from the entire tumor bed, all resections were performed using the open technique. After tumor excision and confirmation of complete resection through gross inspection, 4 samples-1 from each quadrant of the tumor bed-were taken and sent for permanent section analysis. The concordance between the surgeons' visual inspection and final pathological analysis was then evaluated RESULTS: A total of 52 partial nephrectomies were included in this study. The mean tumor size was 49.5±22.6mm with a mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of 7.13±1.93. Masses were removed by enucleation in 21 cases (40.4%) and with a safety margin in 31 cases (59.6%). Nine masses (17.3%) were benign, and 43 (82.7%) were renal cell carcinomas. None of the tumor bed biopsies were positive, indicating 100% concordance between the surgeons' visual inspection and the final pathological analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the surgeons' macroscopic evaluation of the tumor bed during partial nephrectomy is a reliable method for confirming complete resection. Performing biopsies from the tumor bed to confirm negative margins does not appear to provide additional diagnostic value.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concordance between intraoperative macroscopic evaluation and permanent section analysis of tumor bed margin in partial nephrectomy: A prospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Abbas Basiri, Navid Masoumi, Ali Amani-Beni, Sobhan Sabzi, Mahmoud Parvin, Atoosa Gharib, Nasser Shakhssalim, Alireza Lashay, Mohammad Hadi Radfar, Mohammadamin Omrani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.12.270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the concordance between the intraoperative visual assessment of the tumor bed for completeness of resection following partial nephrectomy and the permanent section analysis of biopsies taken from the tumor bed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing partial nephrectomy at 2 university hospitals were prospectively enrolled. R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of tumors were calculated according to preoperative imaging. Masses were resected either by enucleation or with a safety margin. To ensure accurate excisional biopsy from the entire tumor bed, all resections were performed using the open technique. After tumor excision and confirmation of complete resection through gross inspection, 4 samples-1 from each quadrant of the tumor bed-were taken and sent for permanent section analysis. The concordance between the surgeons' visual inspection and final pathological analysis was then evaluated RESULTS: A total of 52 partial nephrectomies were included in this study. The mean tumor size was 49.5±22.6mm with a mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of 7.13±1.93. Masses were removed by enucleation in 21 cases (40.4%) and with a safety margin in 31 cases (59.6%). Nine masses (17.3%) were benign, and 43 (82.7%) were renal cell carcinomas. None of the tumor bed biopsies were positive, indicating 100% concordance between the surgeons' visual inspection and the final pathological analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the surgeons' macroscopic evaluation of the tumor bed during partial nephrectomy is a reliable method for confirming complete resection. Performing biopsies from the tumor bed to confirm negative margins does not appear to provide additional diagnostic value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.12.270\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.12.270","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Concordance between intraoperative macroscopic evaluation and permanent section analysis of tumor bed margin in partial nephrectomy: A prospective study.
Objectives: To evaluate the concordance between the intraoperative visual assessment of the tumor bed for completeness of resection following partial nephrectomy and the permanent section analysis of biopsies taken from the tumor bed.
Methods: Patients undergoing partial nephrectomy at 2 university hospitals were prospectively enrolled. R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of tumors were calculated according to preoperative imaging. Masses were resected either by enucleation or with a safety margin. To ensure accurate excisional biopsy from the entire tumor bed, all resections were performed using the open technique. After tumor excision and confirmation of complete resection through gross inspection, 4 samples-1 from each quadrant of the tumor bed-were taken and sent for permanent section analysis. The concordance between the surgeons' visual inspection and final pathological analysis was then evaluated RESULTS: A total of 52 partial nephrectomies were included in this study. The mean tumor size was 49.5±22.6mm with a mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of 7.13±1.93. Masses were removed by enucleation in 21 cases (40.4%) and with a safety margin in 31 cases (59.6%). Nine masses (17.3%) were benign, and 43 (82.7%) were renal cell carcinomas. None of the tumor bed biopsies were positive, indicating 100% concordance between the surgeons' visual inspection and the final pathological analysis.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the surgeons' macroscopic evaluation of the tumor bed during partial nephrectomy is a reliable method for confirming complete resection. Performing biopsies from the tumor bed to confirm negative margins does not appear to provide additional diagnostic value.
期刊介绍:
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.