[Reports of prostate needle biopsies-what pathologists provide and urologists want].
Befundbericht zu Prostatastanzbiopsien – was Pathologen liefern und Urologen wollen.
Pathological report
Practice pattern
Prognosis
Prostate cancer
Prostate needle biopsy
Journal
Der Urologe. Ausg. A
ISSN: 1433-0563
Titre abrégé: Urologe A
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 1304110
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
12
5
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The prostate biopsy report is key for risk stratification of prostate cancer patients and subsequent therapeutic decision-making. However, due to the inclusion of a multitude of additional parameters its interpretation is becoming more challenging. We aimed to determine how urologists currently interpret prostate biopsy reports, in particular how they consider different histopathological parameters for therapy decision-making. A survey was sent to all urology practices in Germany with the help of the BDU (Berufsverband der Deutschen Urologen e. V.). In total, there were 106 complete responses that could be included for further analyses. Most urologists consider the number of positive cores and relative tumor burden (%) per core as crucial for the assessment of tumor extension. In case of targeted biopsies, the majority of urologists prefers a separate statement of positive cores per random biopsy scheme and per region of interest, respectively. The core with the highest Gleason score is mostly the basis for therapy decision-making (versus the overall Gleason score). Proportion of Gleason 4 pattern also seems to be critical for prostate cancer management. Only half of the urologists demand reporting of the new ISUP/WHO (International Society of Urological Pathology/World Health Organization) grade groups. Additional parameters claimed are Ki67, prostate-specific membrane antigen status, presence of intraductal or neuroendocrine component of the tumor. Our survey shows that there is no standardized reporting for prostate biopsies and that the interpretation of prostate biopsy reports varies among urologists. Further studies and guideline recommendations are necessary to establish a standardized reporting scheme for prostate biopsies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The prostate biopsy report is key for risk stratification of prostate cancer patients and subsequent therapeutic decision-making. However, due to the inclusion of a multitude of additional parameters its interpretation is becoming more challenging.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to determine how urologists currently interpret prostate biopsy reports, in particular how they consider different histopathological parameters for therapy decision-making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A survey was sent to all urology practices in Germany with the help of the BDU (Berufsverband der Deutschen Urologen e. V.). In total, there were 106 complete responses that could be included for further analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most urologists consider the number of positive cores and relative tumor burden (%) per core as crucial for the assessment of tumor extension. In case of targeted biopsies, the majority of urologists prefers a separate statement of positive cores per random biopsy scheme and per region of interest, respectively. The core with the highest Gleason score is mostly the basis for therapy decision-making (versus the overall Gleason score). Proportion of Gleason 4 pattern also seems to be critical for prostate cancer management. Only half of the urologists demand reporting of the new ISUP/WHO (International Society of Urological Pathology/World Health Organization) grade groups. Additional parameters claimed are Ki67, prostate-specific membrane antigen status, presence of intraductal or neuroendocrine component of the tumor.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our survey shows that there is no standardized reporting for prostate biopsies and that the interpretation of prostate biopsy reports varies among urologists. Further studies and guideline recommendations are necessary to establish a standardized reporting scheme for prostate biopsies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32016505
doi: 10.1007/s00120-020-01121-z
pii: 10.1007/s00120-020-01121-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
461-468Références
Hum Pathol. 2007 May;38(5):696-701
pubmed: 17320151
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 1;22(11):2133-40
pubmed: 15169799
J Urol. 2011 Sep;186(3):790-7
pubmed: 21788055
Urol Oncol. 2017 Aug;35(8):499-506
pubmed: 28648414
Nat Rev Urol. 2019 May;16(5):302-317
pubmed: 30962568
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Mar;19(1):1-6
pubmed: 26123120
Mod Pathol. 2005 Feb;18(2):228-34
pubmed: 15475927
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014 Oct;138(10):1387-405
pubmed: 25092589
Eur Urol. 2005 Nov;48(5):745-51
pubmed: 16139948
Eur Urol. 2019 Mar;75(3):498-505
pubmed: 30181068
Br J Cancer. 2015 Jan 6;112(1):140-8
pubmed: 25422912
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Oct;3(4-5):487-497
pubmed: 28753804
Front Oncol. 2018 Dec 20;8:623
pubmed: 30619757
J Urol. 2019 May;201(5):937-942
pubmed: 30414957
Pathology. 2018 Jan;50(1):60-73
pubmed: 29199015
Virchows Arch. 2014 Dec;465(6):623-8
pubmed: 25316188
Am J Clin Pathol. 2002 Sep;118(3):442-50
pubmed: 12219787
Urologe A. 2019 Jul;58(7):752-759
pubmed: 31049637
BMC Urol. 2011 Oct 06;11:21
pubmed: 21978318
Histopathology. 2012 Jan;60(1):125-41
pubmed: 22212082
Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2019 Jun 15;7(3):159-169
pubmed: 31317055
Eur Urol. 2018 Nov;74(5):668-675
pubmed: 30181067
Hum Pathol. 2003 Sep;34(9):911-4
pubmed: 14562287
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Mar;5(2):192-196
pubmed: 28753812
JAMA. 2017 Jun 27;317(24):2532-2542
pubmed: 28655021
Aktuelle Urol. 2019 Dec;50(6):619-624
pubmed: 31390661
J Clin Pathol. 2018 Oct;71(10):874-878
pubmed: 29720406
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
J Pathol. 1996 Apr;178(4):437-41
pubmed: 8691323
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 Apr;41(4):e1-e7
pubmed: 28177964
Hum Pathol. 2009 Apr;40(4):558-64
pubmed: 19144380
Clin Cancer Res. 2002 May;8(5):1148-54
pubmed: 12006531
Prostate. 2011 Feb 15;71(3):281-8
pubmed: 20809553