$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Critical steps within this protocol include identification of tumor region for sampling, measurement of prostate, and tissue sampling. Firstly, measurement of the MRI to identify the correct area of the sampling is key. We demonstrate this method in the accompanying video; however, we also recommend confirming measurements with a radiologist in the first instance. Clear clinical notes which point the researcher towards the area of the MRI images that contains the index lesion are ideal. Secondly, measurement of the prostate should be carried out with care, ensuring that the ruler is held at an angle to measure the full length from base to apex, parallel to the anterior of the prostate. Thirdly, tumor areas should be confirmed prior to sampling by visually inspecting the tissue slice in relation to the original MRI image, palpating the tissue (in some cases the tumor area can feel more dense), and visually assessing the color of the tissue (in some cases the tumor will appear more pale than surrounding benign tissue).
This protocol has been carried out in full at UCL/UCLH by non-clinical postdoctoral researchers, a pathology fellow, pathology consultants, and research technicians. In our experience all steps of the protocol can be learned in under ten cases regardless of technical background. However, we recommend training from a radiologist regarding MRI measurement and training from a pathologist regarding slicing in the first instance. The protocol can be modified by using a 3D printed slicing handle, as previously published10.
Potential limitations of the technique include the risk of impeding on diagnosis. Slicing the prostate is a key step, which could impede on grading or positive margin rates if done incorrectly. There are two potential issues here. Firstly, if all of the index lesion is removed and used for fresh tissue experimentation immediately, routine clinical diagnostics will not be carried out for this lesion and the patient may be misdiagnosed as having a lower grade cancer. To avoid this, the researcher should discuss the sampling plan with the consultant pathologist who will routinely review the case, prior to sampling, and agree on the number, and location, of samples to be taken. Small tumors may be excluded locally for this reason. Secondly, if the prostatic capsule is not pinned down correctly to cork board prior to fixation, this could allow the inner tissue to bulge outwards during fixation, altering the surgical margins. This could lead to a false positive margin, where the remaining tumor appears to reside at the capsule purely due to tissue warping.
The significance of this technique with respect to existing methods lies mainly with tumor targeting. A range of methods for sampling radical prostatectomy specimens has been published to date; however, these all rely on a fully or partially random sampling approach1,2,3,4,5,6,7. The use of biopsy and in particular MRI data here has improved efficiency, allowing for reduced sampling with increased confidence of obtaining tumor tissue8.
Future applications of this method allow for the adoption of a wider range of downstream techniques than with previous sampling methods. For example, the availability of fresh tissue that has a high probability of being tumor means that more expensive and/or labor-intensive fresh tissue techniques can be utilized, as many samples are not required to ensure the presence of tumor. This can include and is not limited to, ex vivo culture, ex vivo MRI, advanced imaging and transcriptomics.Â