Handling and reporting of transperineal template prostate biopsy in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP)

  • Solene-Florence Kammerer-Jacquet
  • Eva Compérat
  • Lars Egevad
  • Ondra Hes
  • Jon Oxley
  • Murali Varma
  • Glen Kristiansen
  • Daniel M. Berney
Original Article

Abstract

Transperineal template prostate biopsies (TTPB) are performed for assessments after unexpected negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies (TRUSB), correlation with imaging findings and during active surveillance. The impact of TTPBs on pathology has not been analysed. The European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) distributed a survey on TTPB, including how specimens were received, processed and analysed. Two hundred forty-four replies were received from 22 countries with TTPBs seen by 68.4% of the responders (n = 167). Biopsies were received in more than 12 pots in 35.2%. The number of cores embedded per cassette varied between 1 (39.5%) and 3 or more (39.5%). Three levels were cut in 48.3%, between 2 and 3 serial sections in 57.2% and unstained spare sections in 45.1%. No statistical difference was observed with TRUSB management. The number of positive cores was always reported and the majority gave extent per core (82.3%), per region (67.1%) and greatest involvement per core (69.4%). Total involvement in the whole series and continuous/discontinuous infiltrates were reported in 42.2 and 45.4%, respectively. The majority (79.4%) reported Gleason score in each site or core, and 59.6% gave an overall score. A minority (28.5%) provided a map or a diagram. For 19%, TTPB had adversely affected laboratory workload with only 27% managing to negotiate extra costs. Most laboratories process samples thoroughly and report TTPB similarly to TRUSB. Although TTPB have caused considerable extra work, it remains uncosted in most centres. Guidance is needed for workload impact and minimum standards of processing if TTPB work continues to increase.

Keywords

Transperineal template biopsy Transrectal ultrasound biopsies Survey Workload impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all ENUP members for their support and for taking the time to participate in the survey. DB is supported by Orchid.

Contributors

The survey was conceived by DB. All authors contributed to the design of the survey. GK uploaded the survey on Survey Monkey. GK circulated the survey invitation email and reminders. The data was cleaned and analysed by GK, SFKJ and DB. The paper was drafted by SFKJ and DB. All authors contributed to revising the draft paper and are guarantors for this publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical responsibilities of authors

We confirm that this work is original and has neither been published elsewhere nor is currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Ethical statement

Institutional ethical guidelines were followed for this study.

Disclosure

The authors of this article have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):87–108.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Maattanen L, Lilja H, Denis LJ, Recker F, Paez A, Bangma CH, Carlsson S, Puliti D, Villers A, Rebillard X, Hakama M, Stenman UH, Kujala P, Taari K, Aus G, Huber A, van der Kwast TH, van Schaik RH, de Koning HJ, Moss SM, Auvinen A, Investigators E (2014) Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384(9959):2027–2035.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, Troncoso P, Sweet J, Evans R, Johnston D, Chen M (2000) A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol 163(1):152–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67993-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rhudd A, McDonald J, Emberton M, Kasivisvanathan V (2017) The role of the multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Curr Opin Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000415
  5. 5.
    Yu J, Fulcher AS, Winks SG, Turner MA, Clayton RD, Brooks M, Li S (2017) Diagnosis of typical and atypical transition zone prostate cancer and its mimics at multiparametric prostate MRI. Br J Radiol 90(1073):20160693.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Ahallal Y, Rozet F, Galiano M, Prapotnich D, Cathelineau X (2015) Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate. Int J Urol: Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 22(2):146–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Cathala N, Mombet A, Uriburu Pizarro F, Carneiro A, Doizi S, Galiano M, Rozet F, Prapotnich D, Cathelineau X (2015) Clinical utility of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate after negative magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal biopsy. Urol Oncol 33(7):329 e327–329 e311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N (2013) Transperineal biopsy of the prostate—is this the future? Nat Rev Urol 10(12):690–702.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakai Y, Tanaka N, Anai S, Miyake M, Hori S, Tatsumi Y, Morizawa Y, Fujii T, Konishi N, Fujimoto K (2017) Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy aimed at sampling one core for each milliliter of prostate volume: 103 cases requiring repeat prostate biopsy. BMC Urol 17(1):28.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0219-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nafie S, Wanis M, Khan M (2017) The efficacy of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy versus transperineal template biopsy of the prostate in diagnosing prostate cancer in men with previous negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Urol J 14(2):3008–3012.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10355.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F, Colecchia M, Aragona F (2014) Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy. Urol Int 93(2):189–192.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000358494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Galbreath RW, Butler WM, Bittner N, Adamovich E (2013) Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol 36(2):116–120.  https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e31823fe639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valerio M, Anele C, Charman SC, van der Meulen J, Freeman A, Jameson C, Singh PB, Emberton M, Ahmed HU (2016) Transperineal template prostate-mapping biopsies: an evaluation of different protocols in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 118(3):384–390.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Comperat E, Griffiths D, Kristiansen G, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Varma M, Egevad L (2014) The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology 64(3):405–411.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Comperat E, Griffiths D, Kristiansen G, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Varma M, Egevad L (2014) Variation in reporting of cancer extent and benign histology in prostate biopsies among European pathologists. Virchows Arch: Int J Pathol 464(5):583–587.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1554-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Comperat E, Evans AJ, Griffiths D, Grobholz R, Kristiansen G, Langner C, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Moss S, Oliveira P, Vainer B, Varma M, Camparo P (2013) Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62(2):247–256.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varma M, Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Comperat E, Griffiths DF, Kristiansen G, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Egevad L (2013) Prostate needle biopsy processing: a survey of laboratory practice across Europe. J Clin Pathol 66(2):120–123.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Griffiths DF, Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Varma M, Montironi R, European Network of U (2009) The European Network of Uropathology: a novel mechanism for communication between pathologists. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 31(2):90–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03784.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pal RP, Elmussareh M, Chanawani M, Khan MA (2012) The role of a standardized 36 core template-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy technique in patients with previously negative transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies. BJU Int 109(3):367–371.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10355.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C, Raspollini MR, Van Leenders GJ, Pihl CG, Kujala P, Pathology Committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate C (2013) 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 Archiv: Int J Pathol 463(3):367–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-013-1466-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl CG, Neetens I, Martikainen P, Di Lollo S, Bubendorf L, Hoedemaeker RF, Members of the pathology committee of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate C (2003) Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol 56(5):336–340.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.56.5.336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biedrzycki O, Varma M, Berney DM (2003) Variations in the processing of prostatic needle cores in the UK: what is safe? J Clin Pathol 56(5):341–343.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.56.5.341CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Villers A, Puech P, Flamand V, Haber GP, Desai MM, Crouzet S, Leroy X, Chopra S, Lemaitre L, Ouzzane A, Gill IS (2016) Partial prostatectomy for anterior cancer: short-term oncologic and functional outcomes. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.057

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solene-Florence Kammerer-Jacquet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eva Compérat
    • 3
  • Lars Egevad
    • 4
  • Ondra Hes
    • 5
  • Jon Oxley
    • 6
  • Murali Varma
    • 7
  • Glen Kristiansen
    • 8
  • Daniel M. Berney
    • 1
  1. 1.Barts Cancer University-Queen Mary UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.Service d’Anatomie et Cytologie PathologiquesUniversité de Rennes 1, Université Bretagne LoireRennesFrance
  3. 3.Hôpital Tenon, HUEP, AP-HPUniversité la SorbonneParisFrance
  4. 4.Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Charles UniversityPilsenCzech Republic
  6. 6.North Bristol NHS TrustBristolUK
  7. 7.University Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
  8. 8.University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations