Biopsy Specimen Handling, Processing, Quality Assurance Program

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

With widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, a greater number of prostate biopsies are performed. It is estimated that more than one million prostate biopsies are performed in the United States annually, with each biopsy consisting of an average of 8–10 sample cores, creating an estimated ten million tissue samples. This trend has created a challenge for effective and timely handling and processing of prostate biopsies in histology laboratories, in addition to their accurate interpretation and quality assurance by surgical pathologists. Various laboratory-controlled factors influence the prostate cancer detection rate in contemporary prostate biopsy practice. This chapter addresses ideal practices for the submission, handling, and processing of prostate biopsies, as well as commonly applied quality assurance programs known to improve overall practice.

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

References

  1. 1.
    Gupta C, Ren JZ, Wojno KJ (2004) Individual submission and embedding of prostate biopsies decreases rates of equivocal pathology reports. Urology 63:83–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kao J, Upton M, Zhang P, Rosen S (2002) Individual prostate biopsy core embedding facilitates maximal tissue representation. J Urol 168:496–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green R, Epstein JI (1999) Use of intervening unstained slides for immunohistochemical stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 23:567–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Renshaw AA (1997) Adequate tissue sampling of prostate core needle biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 107:26–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rogatsch H, Moser P, Volgger H (2000) Diagnostic effect of an improved preembedding method of prostate needle biopsy specimens. Hum Pathol 31:1102–1107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen EA, Kahane H, Epstein JI (1998) Repeat biopsy strategies for men with atypical diagnoses on initial prostate needle biopsy. Urology 52:803–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brat DJ, Wills ML, Lecksell KL, Epstein JI (1999) How often are diagnostic features missed with less extensive histologic sampling of prostate needle biopsy specimens? Am J Surg Pathol 23:257–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiGiuseppe JA, Sauvageot J, Epstein JI (1997) Increasing incidence of minimal residual cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 21:174–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunju LP, Daignault S, Wei JT, Shah RB (2009) Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score? Hum Pathol 40:558–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McDowell PR, Fox WM, Epstein JI (1994) Is submission of remaining tissue necessary when incidental carcinoma of the prostate is found on transurethral resection? Hum Pathol 25:493–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Srodon M, Epstein JI (2002) Central zone histology of the prostate: a mimicker of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol 33:518–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper K (2006) Errors and error rates in surgical pathology: an Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology survey. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:607–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F (1996) Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 20:851–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frable WJ (2006) Surgical pathology – second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what’s out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:620–625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakhleh RE (2006) Error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:630–632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA (2004) The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol 22:295–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raab SS (2006) Improving patient safety through quality assurance. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:633–637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raff LJ, Engel G, Beck KR et al (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 133:295–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh PB, Saw NK, Haq A et al (2008) Use of tissue ink to maintain identification of individual cores on needle biopsies of the prostate. J Clin Pathol 61:1055–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sirota RL (2006) Defining error in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:604–606PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urologic PathologyCaris Life SciencesIrvingUSA
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations