OBJECTIVES: This survey-based study examines what information urologists are extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports, and what they need for clinical management of prostate cancer (PC) patients. METHODS: A questionnaire was used to investigate several topics related to PC biopsy reporting. Two different clinical situations were separately explored, depending on whether the urologist intended a curative or a palliative therapy. RESULTS: 110 of the 300 (37%) urologists responded to the questionnaire and returned anonymous responses. The mean age of respondents was 47.5 years old (range 27-66). On average, they performed 31 (range 0-182) radical prostatectomies per year. Before proposing a curative therapy, several biopsy parameters were requested by the majority of respondents, including number of positive biopsies (104/110 or 95%), Gleason score (103/110 or 94%), highest Gleason grade (94/110 or 85%), localization of positive biopsies (80/110 or 73%), length of tumor on biopsy (58/110 or 53%), presence of extraprostatic extension (66/110 or 60%). In a palliative situation, only three parameters were requested by the majority of respondents: Gleason score (101/110 or 92%), highest Gleason grade (67/110 or 61%) and number of positive biopsies (59/110 or 54%). In prostate needle biopsies harboring cancer on multiple cores from separately designated locations, 77% (68/88) of respondents used the highest Gleason score, regardless of the overall percentage involvement, to determine their treatment plan. PIN (Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia) on biopsy without PC was considered sufficient to re-biopsy by 77% (85/110) of respondents. Thirty six percent (40/110) of the respondents considered ASAP (Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation) to be equivalent to PIN. There was no significant association between the demographic data and the type of information requested on the biopsy report. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of 110 French and Belgian urologists there was high variability in the way clinicians use prostate needle biopsy pathology report. Results of this survey should improve communication between urologists and pathologists and should help evaluate what data should be included in routine pathology reports.
OBJECTIVES: This survey-based study examines what information urologists are extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports, and what they need for clinical management of prostate cancer (PC) patients. METHODS: A questionnaire was used to investigate several topics related to PC biopsy reporting. Two different clinical situations were separately explored, depending on whether the urologist intended a curative or a palliative therapy. RESULTS: 110 of the 300 (37%) urologists responded to the questionnaire and returned anonymous responses. The mean age of respondents was 47.5 years old (range 27-66). On average, they performed 31 (range 0-182) radical prostatectomies per year. Before proposing a curative therapy, several biopsy parameters were requested by the majority of respondents, including number of positive biopsies (104/110 or 95%), Gleason score (103/110 or 94%), highest Gleason grade (94/110 or 85%), localization of positive biopsies (80/110 or 73%), length of tumor on biopsy (58/110 or 53%), presence of extraprostatic extension (66/110 or 60%). In a palliative situation, only three parameters were requested by the majority of respondents: Gleason score (101/110 or 92%), highest Gleason grade (67/110 or 61%) and number of positive biopsies (59/110 or 54%). In prostate needle biopsies harboring cancer on multiple cores from separately designated locations, 77% (68/88) of respondents used the highest Gleason score, regardless of the overall percentage involvement, to determine their treatment plan. PIN (Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia) on biopsy without PC was considered sufficient to re-biopsy by 77% (85/110) of respondents. Thirty six percent (40/110) of the respondents considered ASAP (Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation) to be equivalent to PIN. There was no significant association between the demographic data and the type of information requested on the biopsy report. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of 110 French and Belgian urologists there was high variability in the way clinicians use prostate needle biopsy pathology report. Results of this survey should improve communication between urologists and pathologists and should help evaluate what data should be included in routine pathology reports.
Authors: Anton Ponholzer; Sophina Trubel; Paul Schramek; Florian Wimpissinger; Hans Feichtinger; Christopher Springer; Clemens Wehrberger; Katja Fischereder; Karl Pummer; Thomas Martini; Roman Mayr; Armin Pycha; Stephan Madersbacher Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Michelle Jankowski; Dhananjay A Chitale; Deliang Tang; Andrew Rundle; Sheri Trudeau; Benjamin A Rybicki Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Leonardo O Reis; Brunno C F Sanches; Gustavo Borges de Mendonça; Daniel M Silva; Tiago Aguiar; Ocivaldo P Menezes; Athanase Billis Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Caroline Schroten; Natasja F Dits; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ries Kranse; Arno G J L H van Leenders; Chris H Bangma; Robert Kraaij Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Samson W Fine; Kiril Trpkov; Mahul B Amin; Ferran Algaba; Manju Aron; Dilek E Baydar; Antonio Lopez Beltran; Fadi Brimo; John C Cheville; Maurizio Colecchia; Eva Comperat; Tony Costello; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Warick Delprado; Angelo M DeMarzo; Giovanna A Giannico; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Charles C Guo; Donna E Hansel; Michelle S Hirsch; Jiaoti Huang; Peter A Humphrey; Rafael E Jimenez; Francesca Khani; Max X Kong; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; L Priya Kunju; Priti Lal; Mathieu Latour; Tamara Lotan; Fiona Maclean; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Rohit Mehra; Santosh Menon; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Rodolfo Montironi; George J Netto; Jane K Nguyen; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Anil Parwani; Christian P Pavlovich; Brian D Robinson; Mark A Rubin; Rajal B Shah; Jeffrey S So; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Fabio Tavora; Maria S Tretiakova; Lawrence True; Sara E Wobker; Ximing J Yang; Ming Zhou; Debra L Zynger; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.954