Premium
Whole‐mount evaluation of penectomies for penile cancer: feasibility, cost and comparison to routine sectioning
Author(s) -
Ebel Joshua J,
Shabsigh Ahmad,
Sharp David S,
Zynger Debra L
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
histopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.626
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1365-2559
pISSN - 0309-0167
DOI - 10.1111/his.12149
Subject(s) - penectomy , medicine , surgery , turnaround time , penile cancer , penis , computer science , operating system
Aims Pathological staging in penectomies may be difficult due to the anatomical complexity of penile anatomy, and may be additionally challenging due to the low volume at most institutions. Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of whole‐mount processing for penectomy specimens. Methods and results A 7‐year retrospective search for partial or radical penectomies identified 55 specimens, which were processed routinely ( n = 31) from 2006 to 2009 and whole‐mounted ( n = 24) from 2010 to 2012. Routine cases used more slides per case compared to whole mounts (mean 10.4 versus 7.2). Recuts occurred more often in routine cases (12.9% versus 0%). More routine cases had additional blocks grossed (19.4% versus 4.2%). Upon review, five discrepancies that impacted p T staging were identified in the routine group, with none in the whole‐mount group. The average estimated additional cost for each whole‐mount case compared to routine processing was $40.74, with an increased turnaround time of 1 day. Conclusions Whole‐mounting is a feasible technique for penectomy that can be utilized with minimal increased cost and turnaround time, and may improve staging. Institutions in which whole‐mounting is already established for other organs, such as prostate, may wish to consider utilizing this format for penectomy specimens.