Carlo Andrea Bravi1, Emily Vertosick2, Amy Tin2, Simone Scuderi3, Giuseppe Fallara3, Giuseppe Rosiello3, Elio Mazzone3, Marco Bandini3, Giorgio Gandaglia3, Nicola Fossati3, Massimo Freschi4, Rodolfo Montironi5, Alberto Briganti3, Francesco Montorsi3, Andrew Vickers2. 1. Division of Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: bravi.carloandrea@hsr.it. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Division of Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 4. Unit of Pathology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 5. Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of prostate biopsy is affected by sampling (does the urologist take cores from the right place?) and the histological evaluation (does the pathologist grade correctly?). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative contribution of sampling and histological evaluation to the reliability of prostate biopsy in terms of concordance with grading of the surgical specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 848 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2017 at our institution with external or internal biopsies. Since 2016, a dedicated uropathologist has reviewed all the biopsies sampled externally. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We considered the discordance between biopsy and final pathology as a proxy for the quality of prostate biopsy, and calculated the corresponding discordance rate for each biopsy setting. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed the highest rate of grade discordance for patients who had an external biopsy without internal review (66%). Biopsies both sampled and reviewed internally had the lowest discrepancy rate (39%; p<0.0001 compared to external biopsies). Biopsies sampled outside our institution and reviewed internally had an intermediate discordance rate (51%; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of prostate biopsy is influenced by both sampling and evaluation. Highly experienced pathological evaluation of needle biopsies is crucial, but biopsy quality also strongly depends on the quality of the sampled material. Future studies should investigate the mechanism underlying discordance in sampling. Consideration should be given to regionalization of prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: The quality of prostate biopsy varies between specialist and community centers. We found that this variation is affected by both sampling (does the urologist take cores from the right place?) and histological evaluation (does the pathologist grade correctly?).
BACKGROUND: The quality of prostate biopsy is affected by sampling (does the urologist take cores from the right place?) and the histological evaluation (does the pathologist grade correctly?). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative contribution of sampling and histological evaluation to the reliability of prostate biopsy in terms of concordance with grading of the surgical specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 848 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2017 at our institution with external or internal biopsies. Since 2016, a dedicated uropathologist has reviewed all the biopsies sampled externally. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We considered the discordance between biopsy and final pathology as a proxy for the quality of prostate biopsy, and calculated the corresponding discordance rate for each biopsy setting. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed the highest rate of grade discordance for patients who had an external biopsy without internal review (66%). Biopsies both sampled and reviewed internally had the lowest discrepancy rate (39%; p<0.0001 compared to external biopsies). Biopsies sampled outside our institution and reviewed internally had an intermediate discordance rate (51%; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of prostate biopsy is influenced by both sampling and evaluation. Highly experienced pathological evaluation of needle biopsies is crucial, but biopsy quality also strongly depends on the quality of the sampled material. Future studies should investigate the mechanism underlying discordance in sampling. Consideration should be given to regionalization of prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: The quality of prostate biopsy varies between specialist and community centers. We found that this variation is affected by both sampling (does the urologist take cores from the right place?) and histological evaluation (does the pathologist grade correctly?).
Authors: W C Allsbrook; K A Mangold; M H Johnson; R B Lane; C G Lane; M B Amin; D G Bostwick; P A Humphrey; E C Jones; V E Reuter; W Sakr; I A Sesterhenn; P Troncoso; T M Wheeler; J I Epstein Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Tayyar A Ozkan; Ahmet T Eruyar; Oguz O Cebeci; Omur Memik; Levent Ozcan; Ibrahim Kuskonmaz Journal: Scand J Urol Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 1.612
Authors: J Stephen Jones; Amit Patel; Lynn Schoenfield; John C Rabets; Craig D Zippe; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Delray Schultz; Andrew A Renshaw; Robin T Vollmer; William R Welch; Kerri Cote; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: T Van der Kwast; L Bubendorf; C Mazerolles; M R Raspollini; G J Van Leenders; C-G Pihl; P Kujala Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carlo A Bravi; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Elio Mazzone; Daniele Robesti; Daniar Osmonov; Klaus-Peter Juenemann; Luca Boeri; R Jeffrey Karnes; Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Peter Albers; Gaëtan Devos; Steven Joniau; Hendrik Van Poppel; Shahrokh F Shariat; Axel Heidenreich; David Pfister; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Inderbir S Gill; Alexander Mottrie; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Robert J Hoekstra; Ward J H Goossens; Alexander Beulens; Hilde van Herk; Brigiet M Hoevenaars; Joost de Baaij; Diederik M Somford; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jean-Paul A van Basten; H J Eric J Vrijhof Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-04-27