Intraoperative margin assessment during radical prostatectomy: is microscopy frozen in time or ready for digital defrost?

Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) is used with the intention to improve functional and oncological outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). High resource requirements of IFS techniques such as NeuroSAFE may preclude widespread adoption, even if there are benefits to patients. Recent advances in fresh‐tissue microscopic digital imaging technologies may offer an attractive alternative, and there is a growing body of evidence regarding these technologies. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the familiar limitations of IFS and compare these to the attractive counterpoints of modern digital imaging technologies such as the speed and ease of image generation, the locality of equipment within (or near) the operating room, the ability to maintain tissue integrity, and digital transfer of images. Confocal laser microscopy (CLM) is the modality most frequently reported in the literature for margin assessment during RP. We discuss several imitations and obstacles to widespread dissemination of digital imaging technologies. Among these, we consider how the ‘en‐face’ margin perspective will challenge urologists and pathologists to understand afresh the meaning of positive margin significance. As a part of this, discussions on how to describe, categorize, react to, and evaluate these technologies are needed to improve patient outcomes. Limitations of this review include its narrative structure and that the evidence base in this field is relatively immature but developing at pace. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the familiar limitations of intraoperative frozen section for margin assessment and compare these to the attractive counterpoints of modern digital imaging technologies such as confocal laser microscopy. We also delve into the new questions posed by these technologies that use en‐face margin assessment as opposed to traditional formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded cross‐sectional margin assessment.