Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The histopathological examination of a prostate biopsy is the basis of prostate cancer diagnostics. Prostate cancer grade and extent of cancer in the diagnostic biopsy are important determinants of patient management. Quality of the prostate biopsy and its processing may influence the outcome of the histopathological evaluation. Further, an unambiguous and concise pathology reporting is essential for an appropriate clinical decision process. Since our initial report in 2003, there have been several practice changes, including the increased uptake of follow-up biopsies of patients who are under active surveillance, increasingly taken under guidance of MRI, or who underwent a prostate-sparing therapy. Therefore, we investigated the literature on the current pathology practices and recommendations with regard to prostate biopsy processing and reporting, both at initial diagnosis and in the context of follow-up biopsies in order to update our guidelines on the optimal processing and reporting of prostate biopsies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bangma CH, Bul M, Van der Kwast TH, Pickles T, Korfage IJ, Hoeks CM et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 85(3):295–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Sahu M et al (2012) Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 13(6):622–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bertaccini A, Fandella A, Prayer-Galetti T, Scattoni V, Galosi AB, Ficarra V et al (2007) Systematic development of clinical practice guidelines for prostate biopsies: a 3-year Italian project. Anticancer Res 27(1B):659–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hameed O, Humphrey PA (2005) Immunohistochemistry in diagnostic surgical pathology of the prostate. Semin Diagn Pathol 22(1):88–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Epstein JI (2004) Diagnosis and reporting of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Mod Pathol 17(3):307–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Watson K, Wang C, Yilmaz A, Bismar TA, Trpkov K (2013) Use of immunohistochemistry in routine workup of prostate needle biopsies: a tertiary academic institution experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(4):541–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):820–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Robinson B, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M (2012) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Arch Pathol Lab Med 136(4):418–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl CG, Neetens I, Martikainen P et al (2003) Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol 56(5):336–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G et al (2005) Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 216:20–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS et al (2013) Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030

    Google Scholar 

  16. Marberger M, McConnell JD, Fowler I, Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Somerville MC et al (2011) Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 29(13):1744–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raff LJ, Engel G, Beck KR, O'Brien AS, Bauer ME (2009) The effectiveness of inking needle core prostate biopsies for preventing patient specimen identification errors: a technique to address Joint Commission patient safety goals in specialty laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133(2):295–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bostwick DG, Qian J, Drewnowska K, Varvel S, Bostwick KC, Marberger M et al (2010) Prostate needle biopsy quality in reduction by dutasteride of prostate cancer events study: worldwide comparison of improvement with investigator training and centralized laboratory processing. Urology 75(6):1406–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Obek C, Doganca T, Erdal S, Erdogan S, Durak H (2012) Core length in prostate biopsy: size matters. J Urol 187(6):2051–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Iczkowski KA, Casella G, Seppala RJ, Jones GL, Mishler BA, Qian J et al (2002) Needle core length in sextant biopsy influences prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 59(5):698–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG (2000) Sampling, submission, and report format for multiple prostate biopsies: a 1999 survey. Urology 55(4):568–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fajardo DA, Epstein JI (2010) Fragmentation of prostatic needle biopsy cores containing adenocarcinoma: the role of specimen submission. BJU Int 105(2):172–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fiset PO, Aprikian A, Brimo F (2013) Length of prostate biopsy cores: does it impact cancer detection? Can J Urol 20 (4), in press

  24. Boccon-Gibod L, Van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Boccon-Gibod L, Bono A, European Society of U et al (2004) Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 46(2):177–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, Van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schroder FH (2007) Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 177(1):107–12, discussion 12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Programme PCRM (2006) Undertaking a transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of teh prostate. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/prostate/pcrmp01.pdf.

  27. Varma M, Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Comperat E, Griffiths DF et al (2013) Prostate needle biopsy processing: a survey of laboratory practice across Europe. J Clin Pathol 66(2):120–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lane RB Jr, Lane CG, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Allsbrook WC Jr (1998) Needle biopsies of the prostate: what constitutes adequate histologic sampling? Arch Pathol Lab Med 122(9):833–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vis AN, Kranse R, Nigg AL, Van der Kwast TH (2000) Quantitative analysis of the decay of immunoreactivity in stored prostate needle biopsy sections. Am J Clin Pathol 113(3):369–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Morales AR, Essenfeld H, Essenfeld E, Duboue MC, Vincek V, Nadji M (2002) Continuous-specimen-flow, high-throughput, 1-hour tissue processing. A system for rapid diagnostic tissue preparation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 126(5):583–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Emerson LL, Tripp SR, Baird BC, Layfield LJ, Rohr LR (2006) A comparison of immunohistochemical stain quality in conventional and rapid microwave processed tissues. Am J Clin Pathol 125(2):176–83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Helin H, Lundin M, Lundin J, Martikainen P, Tammela T, Helin H et al (2005) Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. Hum Pathol 36(4):381–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Van der Kwast TH, Evans A, Lockwood G, Tkachuk D, Bostwick DG, Epstein JI et al (2010) Variability in diagnostic opinion among pathologists for single small atypical foci in prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 34(2):169–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Camparo P, Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Compérat E, Evans AJ, Grobholz R, Kristiansen G, Langner C, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Oliveira P, Vainer B, Varma M (2012) Utility of whole slide imaging and virtual microscopy in prostate pathology. APMIS: Acta Pathol Microbiol et Immunol Scand 120:298–304

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bostwick DG, Srigley J, Grignon D, Maksem J, Humphrey P, Van der Kwast TH et al (1993) Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the prostate: morphologic criteria for its distinction from well-differentiated carcinoma. Hum Pathol 24(8):819–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Van der Kwast T, Al Daoud N, Collette L, Sykes J, Thoms J, Milosevic M et al (2012) Biopsy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma is prognostic in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 48(9):1318–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang W, Sun X, Epstein JI (2008) Partial atrophy on prostate needle biopsy cores: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 32(6):851–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hameed O, Humphrey PA (2006) Stratified epithelium in prostatic adenocarcinoma: a mimic of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol: Off J USA Can Acad Pathol Inc 19(7):899–906

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tavora F, Epstein JI (2008) High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasialike ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 32(7):1060–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wolters T, Van der Kwast TH, Vissers CJ, Bangma CH, Roobol M, Schroder FH, Van Leenders GJLH (2010) False-negative prostate needle biopsies: frequency, histopathologic features, and follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 34:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ali TZ, Epstein JI (2008) False positive labeling of prostate cancer with high molecular weight cytokeratin: p63 a more specific immunomarker for basal cells. Am J Surg Pathol 32(12):1890–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Leenders GJ, Boormans JL, Vissers CJ, Hoogland AM, Bressers AA, Furusato B et al (2011) Antibody EPR3864 is specific for ERG genomic fusions in prostate cancer: implications for pathological practice. Mod Pathol: Off J USA Can Acad Pathol Inc 24(8):1128–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fisher G, Yang ZH, Kudahetti S, Moller H, Scardino P, Cuzick J et al (2013) Prognostic value of Ki-67 for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed cohort. Br J Cancer 108(2):271–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kristiansen G (2012) Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology 60(1):125–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hailemariam S, Vosbeck J, Cathomas G, Zlobec I, Mattarelli G, Eichenberger T et al (2011) Can molecular markers stratify the diagnostic value of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia? Hum Pathol 42(5):702–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS et al (2009) Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 27(21):3459–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM, Bjartell A, Egevad L, Epstein JI et al (2012) A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 62(1):20–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tolonen TT, Kujala PM, Tammela TL, Tuominen VJ, Isola JJ, Visakorpi T (2011) Overall and worst Gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol 11:21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Vis AN, Roemeling S, Kranse R, Schroder FH, Van der Kwast TH (2007) Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur Urol 51(4):931–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Reese AC, Cowan JE, Brajtbord JS, Harris CR, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR (2012) The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer 118(24):6046–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Evans AJ, Ryan P, Van derKwast T (2011) Treatment effects in the prostate including those associated with traditional and emerging therapies. Adv Anat Pathol 18(4):281–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lucia MS, Epstein JI, Goodman PJ, Darke AK, Reuter VE, Civantos F et al (2007) Finasteride and high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(18):1375–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Epstein JI (2011) Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol 186(3):790–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI (2011) Should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol 35(9):1351–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vis AN, Van Der Kwast TH (2001) Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and putative precursor lesions of prostate cancer: a clinical perspective. BJU Int 88(2):147–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Valenstein PA (1999) Diagnostic uncertainty expressed in prostate needle biopsies. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes Study of 15,753 prostate needle biopsies in 332 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 123(8):687–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Chan NG, Duggal A, Weir MM, Driman DK (2008) Pathological reporting of colorectal cancer specimens: a retrospective survey in an academic Canadian pathology department. Can J Surg 51(4):284–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, M5G 2C4, Canada

    T. Van der Kwast

  2. Institute of Pathology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    L. Bubendorf

  3. Department of Pathology, CHU Rangueil, Toulouse, France

    C. Mazerolles

  4. Histology and Molecular Diagnostics, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy

    M. R. Raspollini

  5. Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    G. J. Van Leenders

  6. Department of Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

    C.-G. Pihl

  7. Department of Pathology, FIMLAB Laboratories, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland

    P. Kujala

Authors
  1. T. Van der Kwast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Bubendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Mazerolles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. R. Raspollini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. J. Van Leenders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C.-G. Pihl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Kujala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Van der Kwast.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van der Kwast, T., Bubendorf, L., Mazerolles, C. et al. Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Virchows Arch 463, 367–377 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-013-1466-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-013-1466-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation