A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

Histopathological evaluation of prostate specimens after thermal ablation may be confounded by the presence of thermally-fixed cells




AuthorsMikael Anttinen, Eemil Yli-Pietilä, Visa Suomi, Pietari Mäkelä, Teija Sainio, Jani Saunavaara, Lauri Eklund, Roberto Blanco Sequeiros, Pekka Taimen, Peter J. Boström

PublisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD

Publication year2019

JournalInternational Journal of Hyperthermia

Journal acronymINT J HYPERTHER

Volume36

Issue1

First page 915

Last page925

Number of pages11

ISSN0265-6736

eISSN1464-5157

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2019.1652773

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/42349740


Abstract

Purpose: Prostate cancer can be eradicated with heat exposure. However, high and rapid temperature elevations may cause thermofixation giving the appearance of viable tissue. The purpose was to characterize the immunoprofile and evaluate the viability of prostate regions with suspected thermofixation.

Methods and materials: A prospective, ethics-approved and registered study (NCT03350529) enrolled six patients with MRI-visible, biopsy-concordant prostate cancer to undergo lesion-targeted MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) followed by radical prostatectomy at 3 weeks, to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of TULSA with whole-mount histology as a reference standard. If ambiguity about complete necrosis within the ablated region remained after hematoxylin-eosin staining, viability was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Treatment day MRI-thermometry and 3-week contrast-enhanced MRI post-TULSA were examined to assess ablation success and correlation with histopathology.

Results: One patient presented with an apparently viable subregion inside the ablated area, surrounded by necrosis on H&E staining, located where temperature was highest on MRI-thermometry and tissues completely devascularized on MRI. Immunoprofile of the apparently viable tissue revealed changes in staining patterns suggesting thermofixation; the most significant evidence was the negative cytokeratin 8 staining detected with Cam5.2 antibody. A comprehensive literature review supports these observations of thermofixation with similar findings in prostate and other tissues.

Conclusion: Thermally-fixed cells can sustain morphology on H&E staining. Misinterpretation of treatment failure may occur, if this phenomenon is not recognized and immunohistochemistry performed. Based on the previous literature and the current study, Cam5.2 staining for cytokeratin 8 appears to be a practical and reliable tool for distinguishing thermally-fixed from viable cells.


Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.





Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 11:50