{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.058, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04133333333333333, 'mean_word_length': 4.840466926070039, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Incidental Prostate Adenocarcinoma in Cystoprostatectomy Specimens: Partial Versus Complete Prostate Sampling

Background. The rate of incidental prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) detection in radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP) varies widely, ranging from 15% to 54%. Such variability may be explained by institutional differences in prostate grossing protocols. Either partial or complete submission of the prostate gland in RCP may result in detection of clinically insignificant or significant incidental PCa. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical significance of PCa in RCP specimens in partial versus complete sampling. Material. Seventy-two out of 158 RCP cases showed incidental PCa. The pathologic features, including Gleason score, margin status, extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), PCa stage, and tumor volume, were assessed. Results. The 72 cases were divided into partial (n = 21, 29.1%) and complete sampling (n = 51, 70.8%) groups. EPE was detected in 13/72 (18.1%) with 11/13 (84.6%) cases in the complete group. Positive margins were present in 11/72 (15.3%) with 9/11 (81.8%) in the complete group. SVI was detected in 4/72 (5.6%) with 3/4 (75.0%) in the complete group. Overall, 4/72 (5.6%) had a Gleason score >7, all of which were in the complete group. Conclusion. Our data suggest that complete sampling of the prostate may be the ideal approach to grossing RCP specimens, allowing for greater detection of clinically significant incidental PCa.