The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical significance of various histomorphologic findings related to mucosal inflammation in negative appendectomy. We reviewed histopathologic findings of 118 negative appendectomies and correlated them with the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score and appendiceal diameter. Among 118 patients with negative appendectomy, 94 (80%), 73 (78%) and 89 (75%) patients displayed mucosal inflammation, high neutrophil score (neutrophil count ≥10/5 high power field and surface epithelial flattening, respectively. Out of 118 patients with negative appendectomy, mucosal inflammation, high neutrophil score and surface epithelial flattening were associated with higher risk group according to the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score (p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, mucosal inflammation, high neutrophil score and surface epithelial flattening were frequently detected in 118 negative appendectomies, compared with 24 incidental appendectomies (p < 0.05, respectively). In an analysis of 77 negative appendectomy patients with appendiceal diameter data available, increased appendiceal diameter was positively correlated with luminal inflammation, high neutrophil score and surface epithelial flattening (p < 0.05, respectively). In conclusion, mucosal inflammation, high neutrophil score and surface epithelial flattening in negative appendectomy may be relevant to patients’ signs and symptoms, especially in cases with no other cause of the abdominal pain.

Context.— The prostate sampling methods for radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP) specimens may affect pathologic results. Objective.— To investigate the impact on the tumor stage and clinicopathologic features according to the prostate sampling method for RCP specimens. Design.— From 2016 to 2017, the prostate in RCP was minimally and conventionally embedded (group 1, n = 98). From 2017 to 2018, it was completely embedded (group 2, n = 102). Results.— Group 2 was more likely to have prostatic ducts or acini involvement by urothelial carcinoma in situ component (27% versus 10%, P = .002) and prostate involvement (30% versus 13%, P = .003) than group 1. Although there were cases with prostatic stromal invasion in group 2 (14% versus 7%, P = .13), it was not statistically significant. In all, 6 cases were upstaged by subepithelial prostatic stromal invasion through intraurethral extension according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Tumor location and the presence of concurrent carcinoma in situ were strongly associated with prostate involvement of urothelial carcinoma. Prostatic adenocarcinoma (PA) was incidentally identified in 47 cases (23.5%). Incidental PA and clinically significant PA were more often identified in group 2 than group 1 (38% versus 8%, P &lt; .01 and 15% versus 6%, P = .048, respectively). Conclusions.— A complete prostate examination in RCP specimens can be suggested, since the final pathologic stage can be changed through a thorough prostate examination especially in accord with the AJCC staging manual 8th edition. In addition, the complete prostate analysis could detect more incidental and clinically significant PA.