Advertisement

Evaluation of Prostate Needle Biopsies

  • Giovanna A. Giannico
  • Omar Hameed
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1126)

Abstract

The introduction of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening has caused a stage shift in diagnosis of prostate cancer and an increasing number of patients receiving early diagnosis. This has led to early detection of limited foci of cancer on prostate biopsy, and clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. Therefore, current methods for sampling, diagnosing and managing prostate cancer have significantly evolved in recent years. In light of recent management changes and conservative surveillance protocols prompting new handling, grading and staging guidelines, the evaluation of prostate biopsy in contemporary practice has become pivotal. It is therefore critical to recognize minor foci of cancer or atypical glands, and distinguish these from benign mimics that could lead to a false positive diagnosis.

In this chapter, current biopsy modalities and imaging techniques, tissue handling and recent updates in the interpretation of prostate biopsy will be discussed.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Prostate needle biopsy Gleason score Pathology prostate biopsy Prostate biopsy diagnosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68:7–30Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–74 discussion 74–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J et al (2006) Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 175:1605–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS et al (2013) How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J 7:E293–E298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A et al (2007) Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 52:430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 61:1181–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meng MV, Elkin EP, DuChane J et al (2006) Impact of increased number of biopsies on the nature of prostate cancer identified. J Urol 176:63–68 discussion 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL et al (2001) Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 166:86–91 discussion 91–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH et al (2000) Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol 163:158–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel A et al (2004) Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J Urol 172:94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Jones JS (2008) Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. Urology 71:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barzell WEWW (2003) Transperineal template guided saturation biopsy of the prostate: rationale, indications, and technique. Urol Times 31:2Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Onik G, Barzell W (2008) Transperineal 3D mapping biopsy of the prostate: an essential tool in selecting patients for focal prostate cancer therapy. Urol Oncol 26:506–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E et al (2015) Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate. Int J Urol 22:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65:809–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J et al (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1380–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG et al (2012) Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 62:902–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK et al (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188:2152–2157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M et al (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Algaba F, Epstein JI, Aldape HC et al (1996) Assessment of prostate carcinoma in core needle biopsy—definition of minimal criteria for the diagnosis of cancer in biopsy material. Cancer 78:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baisden BL, Kahane H, Epstein JI (1999) Perineural invasion, mucinous fibroplasia, and glomerulations: diagnostic features of limited cancer on prostate needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol 23:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Srigley JR (2004) Benign mimickers of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol 17:328–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Humphrey PA (2007) Diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue. J Clin Pathol 60:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Epstein JNG (2015) Biopsy interpretation of the prostate. Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qian J, Wollan P, Bostwick DG (1997) The extent and multicentricity of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in clinically localized prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 28:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175:820–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Netto GJ, Epstein JI (2006) Widespread high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostatic needle biopsy: a significant likelihood of subsequently diagnosed adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 30:1184–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Akhavan A, Keith JD, Bastacky SI et al (2007) The proportion of cores with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on extended-pattern needle biopsy is significantly associated with prostate cancer on site-directed repeat biopsy. BJU Int 99:765–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schoenfield L, Jones JS, Zippe CD et al (2007) The incidence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical glands suspicious for carcinoma on first-time saturation needle biopsy, and the subsequent risk of cancer. BJU Int 99:770–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D et al (2009) Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 182:485–490 discussion 490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Hussain TO, Epstein JI (2011) Initial high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with carcinoma on subsequent prostate needle biopsy: findings at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 35:1165–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tosoian JJ, Alam R, Ball MW et al (2018) Managing high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and atypical glands on prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol 15(1):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rhamy RK, Buchanan RD, Spalding MJ (1973) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate gland. J Urol 109:457–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19:1528–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (1996) Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 20:802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsuzuki T (2015) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comprehensive and updated review. Int J Urol 22:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW et al (2015) Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 28:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kweldam CF, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D et al (2017) Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 30:1126–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Porter LH, Lawrence MG, Ilic D et al (2017) Systematic review links the prevalence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate to prostate cancer risk categories. Eur Urol 72:492–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miyai K, Divatia MK, Shen SS et al (2014) Heterogeneous clinicopathological features of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison between “precursor-like” and “regular type” lesions. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7:2518–2526PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Humphrey PA et al (2014) Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the prostate: report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference. Am J Surg Pathol 38:e6–e19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jiang Z, Woda BA, Rock KL et al (2001) P504S: a new molecular marker for the detection of prostate carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 25:1397–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gaudin PB, Epstein JI (1995) Adenosis of the prostate. Histologic features in needle biopsy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 19:737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beach R, Gown AM, De Peralta-Venturina MN et al (2002) P504S immunohistochemical detection in 405 prostatic specimens including 376 18-gauge needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 26:1588–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Amin MB, Tamboli P, Varma M et al (1999) Postatrophic hyperplasia of the prostate gland: a detailed analysis of its morphology in needle biopsy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 23:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brimo F, Epstein JI (2012) Immunohistochemical pitfalls in prostate pathology. Hum Pathol 43:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Osunkoya AO, Hansel DE, Sun X et al (2008) Aberrant diffuse expression of p63 in adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy: report of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 32:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Giannico GA, Ross HM, Lotan T et al (2013) Aberrant expression of p63 in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a radical prostatectomy study. Am J Surg Pathol 37:1401–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jiang Z, Wu CL, Woda BA et al (2004) Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase: a multi-institutional study of a new prostate cancer marker. Histopathology 45:218–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhou M, Chinnaiyan AM, Kleer CG et al (2002) Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase: a novel tumor marker over-expressed in several human cancers and their precursor lesions. Am J Surg Pathol 26:926–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yang XJ, Tretiakova MS, Sengupta E et al (2003) Florid basal cell hyperplasia of the prostate: a histological, ultrastructural, and immunohistochemical analysis. Hum Pathol 34:462–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bailar JC III, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF (1966) Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation—preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Welch HG, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC (2015) Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer—lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med 373:1685–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE et al (2017) Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41:e1–e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB et al (2016) Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 40:1400–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW et al (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111:753–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360:1310–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR (2010) Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:1117–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thorson P, Vollmer RT, Arcangeli C et al (1998) Minimal carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens: diagnostic features and radical prostatectomy follow-up. Mod Pathol 11:543–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Epstein JI (1995) Diagnostic criteria of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol 26:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG (2000) Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:98–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reis LO, Reinato JA, Silva DC et al (2010) The impact of core biopsy fragmentation in prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 42:965–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fajardo DA, Epstein JI (2010) Fragmentation of prostatic needle biopsy cores containing adenocarcinoma: the role of specimen submission. BJU Int 105:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gupta C, Ren JZ, Wojno KJ (2004) Individual submission and embedding of prostate biopsies decreases rates of equivocal pathology reports. Urology 63:83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yfantis HG LO, Silverberg SG (2002) Prostate core biopsies processing: evaluating current practice. United States and Canadian academy of pathology annual meeting, Chicago, IL, pp. 347–1447Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kao J, Upton M, Zhang P et al (2002) Individual prostate biopsy core embedding facilitates maximal tissue representation. J Urol 168:496–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D et al (2015) Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 67:771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL et al (2014) The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:1387–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C et al (2003) Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol 56:336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C et al (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 Arch 463:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Iczkowski KA, Casella G, Seppala RJ et al (2002) Needle core length in sextant biopsy influences prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 59:698–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L et al (2014) Optimising pre-analytical factors affecting quality of prostate biopsies: the case for site specific labelling and single core submission. Pathology 46:579–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Boccon-Gibod L, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R et al (2004) Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 46:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Obek C, Doganca T, Erdal S et al (2012) Core length in prostate biopsy: size matters. J Urol 187:2051–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanna A. Giannico
    • 1
  • Omar Hameed
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pathology, Microbiology and ImmunologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Pathology Medical DirectorHCA Midwest DivisionKansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Adjunct Professor of Pathology, Microbiology and ImmunologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations