Harvesting of unfixed tissue from radical prostatectomy specimens for research purposes is challenging. Many prostate cancers cannot be identified at gross inspection and this tumour is notoriously multifocal and heterogeneous. We aimed to develop a technique to allow detailed topographic analysis and the sampling of sufficient amount of tumour without jeopardizing clinical reporting.
A custom-made double-bladed knife was utilized for cutting a 4 mm thick horizontal section of the prostate. The slices were split into segments that were frozen in gel, cryosections were cut and RNA integrity numbers (RIN) analysed. Sections were cut from all blocks of 20 cases and the cutting time monitored. Slides were scanned and the slices digitally reconstructed. Cutting frozen sections of an entire slice took 79 - 253 minutes (mean 162 minutes). Tumour was detected in frozen sections of 85% (17/20) of cases and in 46% (72/155) of blocks. The morphological quality was determined to be excellent and RIN values high (mean 8.9).
This novel protocol for biobanking of fresh tissue from prostatectomy specimens provides sufficient tumour material for research purposes, while also enabling reporting of histopathology. The harvesting of a full tissue slice facilitates studies of tumour multifocality and heterogeneity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,974,897
of 27,861,304 outputs
Outputs from Histopathology
#2,540
of 3,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,925
of 453,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Histopathology
#62
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,861,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
