Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

v. 25 (1912)

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

v. 26 (1913)

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

v. 28 (1915)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

v.1=[no.1-4] (1875-1877)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

v.2=[no.5-8] (1877-1878)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

v.6=[no.21-24] (1881-1882)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

v.22=no.85-88 (1897)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

[v.15]=[no.57-60] (1890-1891)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

v.41=no.161-164 (1916)

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales.

v.36=no.141-144 (1911)

Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 2nd series: Botany

v.9 (1916-1922)

Transactions and proceedings of the Botanical Society of Pennsylvania.

1

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the handling and processing of radical prostatectomy specimens were coordinated by working group 1. Most uropathologists followed similar procedures for fixation of radical prostatectomy specimens, with 51% of respondents transporting tissue in formalin. There was also consensus that the prostate weight without the seminal vesicles should be recorded. There was consensus that the surface of the prostate should be painted. It was agreed that both the prostate apex and base should be examined by the cone method with sagittal sectioning of the tissue sample. There was consensus that the gland should be fully fixed before sectioning. Both partial and complete embedding of prostates was considered to be acceptable as long as the method of partial embedding is stated. No consensus was determined regarding the necessity of weighing and measuring the length of the seminal vesicles, the preparation of whole mounts rather than standardized blocks and the methodology for sampling of fresh tissue for research purposes, and it was agreed that these should be left to the discretion of the working pathologist.