Variables Affecting the Histological Quality of Prostate Core Biopsy Samples in Cancer Detection

Overview

Journal J Cancer Biol Res

Publisher JSciMed Central

Date 2024 Dec 18

PMID 39691738

Authors

Isaac Elijaha

Aseela Samsam

Arash Rafiei

Trushar Patel

Sang-Eun Song

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The examination of the prostate biopsy procedure is essential in the optimization of the diagnostic pathway of such a prevalent affliction as prostate cancer among men worldwide. With the core needle biopsy being the standard of care for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, the ability to obtain quality core samples is directly related to patient treatment and diagnostic reliability. Needle deflection and dynamic tissue deformation are two chief sources of unrepresentative samples outside of human error. To assess how these factors affect overall histological sample quality and what variables influence deflection and deformation, a review of related literature was conducted. A literature search using keywords [(core prostate) OR (prostate)] AND [(biopsy) OR (needle)] AND [(histological) OR (fragmentation) OR (deflection) OR (deformation)] AND [(factors) OR (rate) OR (quality)]. The resulting articles were analysed for relevance of factors influencing histological sample quality. The objective of this review was to analyse trends in the literature and comprise a comprehensive analysis regarding the factors that positively and negatively affect the final histological quality of the core specimens. The results highlighted the velocity of needle insertion into the soft tissue as a variable affecting dynamic deformation, and the geometry of the bevelled biopsy needle tip combined with the application of a biopsy template impacting the deviation of the needle from the linear target. Friction forces also significantly influence the final product as related to these factors. This literature study highlights the crucial parameters of the biopsy procedure and provides for a basis to discuss the improvements to the system and its external components to improve overall patient care. This suggests further investigation of these factors through their manipulation in controlled environments is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the biopsy procedure.

References

Bjurlin M, Carroll P, Eggener S, Fulgham P, Margolis D, Pinto P . Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2019; 203(4):706-712. PMC: 8274953. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617. View

Balk S, Ko Y, Bubley G . Biology of prostate-specific antigen. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(2):383-91. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.083. View

Mahvash M, Dupont P . Fast Needle Insertion to Minimize Tissue Deformation and Damage. IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom. 2011; 2009:3097-3102. PMC: 3051196. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152617. View

Fink K, Hutarew G, Pytel A, Schmeller N . Prostate biopsy outcome using 29 mm cutting length. Urol Int. 2005; 75(3):209-12. DOI: 10.1159/000087795. View

Simpfendorfer T, Kuru T, Steinemann S, Bergstrasser C, Block S, Roth W . Trocar-sharpened needles for image-guided prostate biopsy improve sample quality and performance: first clinical results. J Endourol. 2014; 28(11):1384-8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0121. View

Donahue T, Moul J . Diagnostic accuracy of prostate needle biopsy. Curr Urol Rep. 2002; 3(3):215-21. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-002-0067-7. View

Casanova F, Carney P, Sarntinoranont M . In vivo evaluation of needle force and friction stress during insertion at varying insertion speed into the brain. J Neurosci Methods. 2014; 237:79-89. PMC: 8011429. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.08.012. View

Li A, Liu Y, Plott J, Chen L, Montgomery J, Shih A . Multi-Bevel Needle Design Enabling Accurate Insertion in Biopsy for Cancer Diagnosis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021; 68(5):1477-1486. PMC: 8104469. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3054922. View

Schassburger K, Paepke S, Saracco A, Azavedo E, Ekstrom C, Wiksell H . High velocity pulse biopsy device enables controllable and precise needle insertion and high yield tissue acquisition. Phys Med. 2018; 46:25-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.014. View

10.

Grummet J, Pepdjonovic L, Huang S, Anderson E, Hadaschik B . Transperineal transrectal biopsy in MRI targeting. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(3):368-375. PMC: 5503965. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.58. View

11.

Hugosson J, Roobol M, Mansson M, Tammela T, Zappa M, Nelen V . A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(1):43-51. PMC: 7513694. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009. View

12.

McGill C, Schwartz J, Moore J, McLaughlin P, Shih A . Precision grid and hand motion for accurate needle insertion in brachytherapy. Med Phys. 2011; 38(8):4749-59. DOI: 10.1118/1.3611040. View

13.

Tsumura R, Takishita Y, Fukushima Y, Iwata H . Histological evaluation of tissue damage caused by rotational needle insertion. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2017; 2016:5120-5123. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2016.7591879. View

14.

Mkinen T, Auvinen A, Hakama M, Tammela T . Acceptability and complications of prostate biopsy in population-based PSA screening versus routine clinical practice: a prospective, controlled study. Urology. 2002; 60(5):846-50. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01864-2. View

15.

Bang J, Krall K, Jhala N, Singh C, Tejani M, Arnoletti J . Comparing Needles and Methods of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy to Optimize Specimen Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy for Patients With Pancreatic Masses in a Randomized Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 19(4):825-835.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.042. View

16.

Li A, Plott J, Chen L, Montgomery J, Shih A . Needle deflection and tissue sampling length in needle biopsy. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020; 104:103632. PMC: 7078072. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103632. View

17.

Schroder F, Hugosson J, Roobol M, Tammela T, Ciatto S, Nelen V . Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1320-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084. View

18.

Sehn J . Prostate Cancer Pathology: Recent Updates and Controversies. Mo Med. 2018; 115(2):151-155. PMC: 6139855. View

19.

Brown L, Ahmed H, Faria R, El-Shater Bosaily A, Gabe R, Kaplan R . Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol Assess. 2018; 22(39):1-176. PMC: 6077599. DOI: 10.3310/hta22390. View

20.

Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X . Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019; 17(1):31. PMC: 6375152. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0. View