Literature DB >> 20478583

The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy.

Fadi Brimo1, Luciana Schultz, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined the value of mandatory second opinion pathology review to interpret prostate needle biopsy before radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all cases referred to our institution for radical prostatectomy in 1 year we compared pathological parameters in original and reviewed pathology reports, including benign, atypical or malignant diagnosis, final Gleason score, positive core number, core highest cancer percent and perineural invasion or extraprostatic extension. A major Gleason score discrepancy was defined as a change to a different risk category (6, 7 and 8-10). We defined a significant difference in the highest percent of cancer in a core as 30% or greater.
RESULTS: Of the 855 cases originally diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma cancer was confirmed in 844 (98.8%) by needle biopsy and prostatectomy, of which 9 (1%) were atypical and 2 (0.2%) were benign upon review. A major discrepancy in Gleason score was present in 124 cases (14.7%), of which 57 (46.0%) were upgraded and 67 (54%) were downgraded. Of cases with a final Gleason score of 6, 8.4% were originally diagnosed as 7 (7.8%) or 8-10 (0.6%), 21% with a final score of 7 had an original score of 6 (13.2%) or 8-10 (7.8%) and 21 of 61 (34%) with a score of 8-10 were originally diagnosed as 7 or less. There were 80 cases (64.5%) of disagreement between scores 6 and 7. Of the 777 cases with the positive core number in each report 71 (9.1%) had discrepancies. After review the positive core number was higher in 45 cases (63.4%) and lower in 26 (36.6%). We noted a significant difference in the highest cancer percent in a core in 76 of 844 evaluable cases (9%) in which cancer was originally underestimated. In 60 of 76 cases (78.9%) cancer discontinuously involved the core on review. Review revealed perineural invasion in 138 of 844 cases (16.3%) that was not originally reported in 37 of 138 (26.8%). In 4 cases review showed extraprostatic extension on needle biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a smaller study more than 10 years ago at our institution the rate of unconfirmed cancer was identical (1.2%). To our knowledge this is the first study to analyze concordance upon review of the number of positive cores and maximum percent positive in a core (each discrepancy 9%). In a few cases mandatory second opinion on prostate needle biopsy results in significant differences that may affect therapy. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20478583     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  26 in total

1.  The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Attila Majoros; Attila Marcell Szász; Péter Nyirády; Eszter Székely; Péter Riesz; Attila Szendrői; Attila Keszthelyi; Janina Kulka; Imre Romics
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jen-Jane Liu; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Weiva Sieh; Benjamin I Chung; Iona Cheng; James D Brooks
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.306

3.  The clinical impact of pathological review on selection the treatment modality for localized prostate cancer in candidates for brachytherapy monotherapy.

Authors:  Ryo Kishimoto; Takashi Saika; Kensuke Bekku; Hiroyuki Nose; Fernando Abarzua; Yasuyuki Kobayashi; Motoo Araki; Hiroyuki Yanai; Yasutomo Nasu; Hiromi Kumon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  High-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma present in a single biopsy core is associated with increased extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive surgical margins at prostatectomy.

Authors:  Alcides Chaux; Daniel A Fajardo; Nilda Gonzalez-Roibon; Alan W Partin; Mario Eisenberger; Theodore L DeWeese; George J Netto
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 5.  [The importance of pathology in the German prostate cancer study PREFERE].

Authors:  G Kristiansen; M Stöckle; P Albers; H Schmidberger; P Martus; S Wellek; M Härter; R Bussar-Maatz; T Wiegel
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.011

6.  Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens.

Authors:  Yuki Maruyama; Takuya Sadahira; Motoo Araki; Yosuke Mitsui; Koichiro Wada; Acosta Gonzalez Herik Rodrigo; Kazuaki Munetomo; Yasuyuki Kobayashi; Masami Watanabe; Hiroyuki Yanai; Toyohiko Watanabe; Yasutomo Nasu
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-10

7.  Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution.

Authors:  Sonja D Chen; Joseph L Fava; Ali Amin
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?

Authors:  Natasha C Townsend; Karen Ruth; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Eric M Horwitz; Mark Sobczak; Robert G Uzzo; Rosalia Viterbo; Mark K Buyyounouski
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 11.908

Review 9.  Artificial intelligence in digital pathology - new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology.

Authors:  Kaustav Bera; Kurt A Schalper; David L Rimm; Vamsidhar Velcheti; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  Combining Drive Time and Urologist Density to Understand Access to Urologic Care.

Authors:  Claire L Leiser; Ross E Anderson; Christopher Martin; Heidi A Hanson; Brock O'Neil
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.