{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026843357118586476, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004757050628610262, 'mean_word_length': 5.133333333333334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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}}
Histopathology sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: representative or entire submission?

extension [i.e. tumour–node–metastasis (TNM) stage], estimation of tumour volume and evaluation of resection margins (R). We showed that such information was under-reported in only a few cases. In a clinical set-up with an extensive active surveillance programme for cancers with low Gleason scores and hormonal therapy (but no surgery) for those patients with a high Gleason score, the vast majority of RP will necessarily be of moderately differentiated cancers, i.e. Gleason score 7. The pathology laboratory procedure must, of course, reflect this. We demonstrated that for Gleason score 7 cancers (representing 72.7% of the cases), only very few R positive cases were missed, thus preventing inclusion into the current study protocols. Otherwise, hormonal therapy, irradiation or chemotherapy will be instituted after relapse, which is detected by an increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. This decision does not rely upon the findings of the RP. The international multicentre study, AdPro, conducted by the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group, and Radicals, conducted by the Medical Research Council UK, will hopefully be able to settle whether this approach is adequate. Unfortunately, in the current economic climate, the health care system is met with significant demands for cutting expenses, and we are therefore forced to reevaluate all patient-related as well as non-patientrelated activities. For many cancers procedures are, to some degree, related to tradition and not based upon scientific testing. Of course, if procedures can be shown to be of no essential benefit for the patient they should not be performed. We agree that the procedure presented by Sehdev et al. as the most optimal for partial embedding is laborious and time-consuming and therefore inapplicable in routine pathology. However, we used an easy procedure of mechanical selection of every second slice of the middle section of the RP. This procedure results in a 20–30% decrease in cassettes, depending upon the thickness of the apical and basal slices. In a mediumsized prostate cancer centre with 250 annual RP, this saves approximately 50 cassettes weekly. In a period of scarce resources and reduction in laboratory staff, in addition to increasing demands to pathology staging in many other organ systems, this decrease is essential in order to avoid build-up of bottlenecks. Inclusion of the cutting procedure in the pathology report is not an issue when using templates incorporated into the IT-based pathology report system. The Danish health and social system, which is unique with regard to its public registers of cancer and causes of death, gives us the advantage of being able to detect whether the suggested partial embedding procedure will affect the relapse rate or the survival of patients treated surgically for prostate cancer.