Guidelines on Processing and Reporting of Prostate Biopsies: the 2013 Update of the Pathology Committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)

Overview

Journal Virchows Arch

Specialties Cell Biology
Molecular Biology
Pathology

Date 2013 Aug 7

PMID 23918245

Citations 22

Authors

T van der Kwast

L Bubendorf

C Mazerolles

M R Raspollini

G J van Leenders

C-G Pihl

P Kujala

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The histopathological examination of a prostate biopsy is the basis of prostate cancer diagnostics. Prostate cancer grade and extent of cancer in the diagnostic biopsy are important determinants of patient management. Quality of the prostate biopsy and its processing may influence the outcome of the histopathological evaluation. Further, an unambiguous and concise pathology reporting is essential for an appropriate clinical decision process. Since our initial report in 2003, there have been several practice changes, including the increased uptake of follow-up biopsies of patients who are under active surveillance, increasingly taken under guidance of MRI, or who underwent a prostate-sparing therapy. Therefore, we investigated the literature on the current pathology practices and recommendations with regard to prostate biopsy processing and reporting, both at initial diagnosis and in the context of follow-up biopsies in order to update our guidelines on the optimal processing and reporting of prostate biopsies.

Citing Articles

The impact of the relationship between lesion diameter and total core length on the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer for PI-RADS 3 lesions.

Yakut E World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):162.

PMID: 38488892 PMC: 10942878. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04845-1.

Incidence and Predicting Factors of Histopathological Features at Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the mpMRI Era: Results of a Single Tertiary Referral Center.

Di Mauro E, Di Bello F, Califano G, Morra S, Creta M, Celentano G Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(3).

PMID: 36984626 PMC: 10057318. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59030625.

A correlative study of iron metabolism based on q-Dixon MRI in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer.

Tian Z, Li Y, Li G, Huang Z, Dai W, Wei X Asian J Androl. 2022; 24(6):671-674.

PMID: 35170452 PMC: 9809479. DOI: 10.4103/aja2021116.

Immunohistochemical investigation of cytokine expression levels as biomarkers in transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy specimens of prostate adenocarcinoma.

Singh J, Thachil T, Eapen M, Lim A, Sufyan W, Rawson R Mol Clin Oncol. 2021; 15(3):191.

PMID: 34405051 PMC: 8327082. DOI: 10.3892/mco.2021.2353.

MiR-93/miR-375: Diagnostic Potential, Aggressiveness Correlation and Common Target Genes in Prostate Cancer.

Ciszkowicz E, Porzycki P, Semik M, Kaznowska E, Tyrka M Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21(16).

PMID: 32784653 PMC: 7460886. DOI: 10.3390/ijms21165667.

References

van der Kwast T, Evans A, Lockwood G, Tkachuk D, Bostwick D, Epstein J . Variability in diagnostic opinion among pathologists for single small atypical foci in prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(2):169-77. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181c7997b. View

Hameed O, Humphrey P . Immunohistochemistry in diagnostic surgical pathology of the prostate. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2006; 22(1):88-104. DOI: 10.1053/j.semdp.2005.11.001. View

Obek C, Doganca T, Erdal S, Erdogan S, Durak H . Core length in prostate biopsy: size matters. J Urol. 2012; 187(6):2051-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.075. View

Watson K, Wang C, Yilmaz A, Bismar T, Trpkov K . Use of immunohistochemistry in routine workup of prostate needle biopsies: a tertiary academic institution experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137(4):541-5. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0145-OA. View

Morales A, Essenfeld H, Essenfeld E, Duboue M, Vincek V, Nadji M . Continuous-specimen-flow, high-throughput, 1-hour tissue processing. A system for rapid diagnostic tissue preparation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002; 126(5):583-90. DOI: 10.5858/2002-126-0583-CSFHTH. View

Steyerberg E, Roobol M, Kattan M, van der Kwast T, de Koning H, Schroder F . Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2006; 177(1):107-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.068. View

Tavora F, Epstein J . High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasialike ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32(7):1060-7. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318160edaf. View

Van der Kwast T, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl C, Neetens I, Martikainen P . Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2003; 56(5):336-40. PMC: 1769959. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.56.5.336. View

van Leenders G, Boormans J, Vissers C, Hoogland A, Bressers A, Furusato B . Antibody EPR3864 is specific for ERG genomic fusions in prostate cancer: implications for pathological practice. Mod Pathol. 2011; 24(8):1128-38. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.65. View

10.

Iczkowski K, Bostwick D . Sampling, submission, and report format for multiple prostate biopsies: a 1999 survey. Urology. 2000; 55(4):568-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00558-0. View

11.

Chan N, Duggal A, Weir M, Driman D . Pathological reporting of colorectal cancer specimens: a retrospective survey in an academic Canadian pathology department. Can J Surg. 2008; 51(4):284-8. PMC: 2552946. View

12.

Hailemariam S, Vosbeck J, Cathomas G, Zlobec I, Mattarelli G, Eichenberger T . Can molecular markers stratify the diagnostic value of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia?. Hum Pathol. 2011; 42(5):702-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.09.006. View

13.

Bostwick D, Srigley J, Grignon D, Maksem J, Humphrey P, van der Kwast T . Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the prostate: morphologic criteria for its distinction from well-differentiated carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 1993; 24(8):819-32. DOI: 10.1016/0046-8177(93)90131-y. View

14.

Andriole G, Crawford E, Grubb 3rd R, Buys S, Chia D, Church T . Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1310-9. PMC: 2944770. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810696. View

15.

Emerson L, Tripp S, Baird B, Layfield L, Rohr L . A comparison of immunohistochemical stain quality in conventional and rapid microwave processed tissues. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 125(2):176-83. DOI: 10.1309/GN6Q-CBML-LEAT-LK2M. View

16.

Vis A, van der Kwast T . Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and putative precursor lesions of prostate cancer: a clinical perspective. BJU Int. 2001; 88(2):147-57. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02295.x. View

17.

Ahmed H, Hindley R, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Sahu M . Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13(6):622-32. PMC: 3366323. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70121-3. View

18.

Tolonen T, Kujala P, Tammela T, Tuominen V, Isola J, Visakorpi T . Overall and worst gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol. 2011; 11:21. PMC: 3193164. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2490-11-21. View

19.

Bertaccini A, Fandella A, Prayer-Galetti T, Scattoni V, Galosi A, Ficarra V . Systematic development of clinical practice guidelines for prostate biopsies: a 3-year Italian project. Anticancer Res. 2007; 27(1B):659-66. View

20.

Novis D, Zarbo R, Valenstein P . Diagnostic uncertainty expressed in prostate needle biopsies. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes Study of 15,753 prostate needle biopsies in 332 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999; 123(8):687-92. DOI: 10.5858/1999-123-0687-DUEIPN. View