Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Assurance in Prostate Biopsy Sampling, Processing, and Reporting: A New Pathologic Paradigm for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Imaging and Focal Therapy of Early Prostate Cancer

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 1408 Accesses

Abstract

Focal therapy requires accurate patient selection, yet variance in procedures for obtaining, processing, and diagnosing prostate biopsies results in imprecise and often incomparable data. Variance may be minimized by standardization of biopsy procedures by urologists and pathologists. We propose a ten-step plan for quality assurance that includes pre-analytical (sampling), analytical (processing), and post-analytical (reporting) improvements that includes the following: (1) Measure the amount of tissue sampled (individual core length, aggregate core length, number of fragments, number of cores collected, and identification of extraprostatic tissue); (2) improve accuracy of cancer localization (e.g., imaging, 3D mapping); (3) compare cancer yield with other urologists; (4) implement patient biopsy identification system (bar codes or RFID); (5) compare histotechnologist performance measures (e.g., histotechnologist’s skill in processing and cutting prostate biopsies, number of needle cores embedded per cassette, and number of tissue cuts obtained per specimen); (6) review prior negative slides upon diagnosis of malignancy; (7) review positive slides from outside institutions; (8) pathologist skill in biopsy interpretation; (9) compare laboratory performance measures with national benchmarks; and (10) use practice protocols and reporting templates.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bostwick DG, Waters DJ, Farley ER, Meiers I, Rukstalis D, Cavanaugh WA, et al. Group consensus reports from the Consensus Conference on Focal Treatment of Prostatic Carcinoma. Celebration, Florida, February 24, 2006. Urology. 2007;70(6 Suppl):42–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bostwick DG, Meiers I. Prostate biopsy and optimization of cancer yield. Eur Urol. 2006;49(3):415–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Haggarth L, Ekman P, Egevad L. A new core-biopsy instrument with an end-cut technique provides prostate biopsies with increased tissue yield. BJU Int. 2002;90(1):51–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Novella G, Cerruto MA, Galfano A, Novara G, et al. Needle core length is a quality indicator of systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2006;50(2):266–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dogan HS, Eskicorapci SY, Ertoy-Baydar D, Akdogan B, Gunay LM, Ozen H. Can we obtain better specimens with an end-cutting prostatic biopsy device? Eur Urol. 2005;47(3):297–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mondet F, Boyer C, Oddou JH, Corsois L, Collomb D. Quality score in pathological report of prostate biopsies improve professional practice. Prog Urol. 2009;19(11):825–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Reis LO, Reinato JA, Silva DC, Matheus WE, Denardi F, Ferreira U. The impact of core biopsy fragmentation in prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol. 2010;42(4):965–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bostwick DG, Qian J, Drewnowska K, Varvel S, Bostwick KC, Marberger M, et al. 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. 2010;75(6):1406–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1997;157(1):199–202 (discussion −3).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Presti Jr JC, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000 Jan;163(1):163–6 (discussion 6–7).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Presti Jr JC, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW. Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol. 2003;169(1):125–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mozer P, Baumann M, Chevreau G, Moreau-Gaudry A, Bart S, Renard-Penna R, et al. Mapping of transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsies: quality control and learning curve assessment by image processing. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(4):455–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, Deho F, Angiolilli D, et al. Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Onik G, Barzell W. Transperineal 3D mapping biopsy of the prostate: an essential tool in selecting patients for focal prostate cancer therapy. Urol Oncol. 2008;26(5):506–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barzell WE, Melamed MR. Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate–a 4-year experience. Urology. 2007;70(6 Suppl):27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG. Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4321–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol. 2009;186(2):458–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barqawi AB, Rove KO, Gholizadeh S, O’Donnell CI, Koul H, Crawford ED. The role of 3-dimensional mapping biopsy in decision making for treatment of apparent early stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2008;186(1):80–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J, Johansen TB, Brausi M, Emberton M, et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol. 2007;24(5):775–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel V, Merrick GS, Allen ZA, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Singh S, et al. The incidence of transition zone prostate cancer diagnosed by transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy: implications for treatment planning. Urology. 2011;77(5):1148–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ukimura O, Hung AJ, Gill IS. Innovations in prostate biopsy strategies for active surveillance and focal therapy. Curr Opin Urol. 2011r;21(2):115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Villers A, Ouzzane A. Word of wisdom. Re: three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):941–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sullivan KF, Crawford ED. Targeted focal therapy for prostate cancer: a review of the literature. Ther Adv Urol. 2009;1(3):149–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roberts RO, Bergstralh EJ, Peterson NR, Bostwick DG, Lieber MM, Jacobsen SJ. Positive and negative biopsies in the pre-prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen eras, 1980 to 1997. J Urol. 2000;163(5):1471–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, Barry MJ. Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(18):1395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Boccon-Gibod L, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Boccon-Gibod L, Bono A. Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2004;46(2):177–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bostwick DG. Webdox. 2011. Available from: https://www.bostwicklaboratories.com/global/services/practice-solutions/webdox.aspx

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Organizations JCoAoHC. Laboratory National Patient Safety Goals. 2008. Available from http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/32B9933B-5638-4FB0-BEDA-04C3A6BBF398/0/LAB_NPSG.pdf.

  32. Patel J, Layfield LJ. Histopathologic review of previously negative prostatic core needle biopsies following a new diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate by core needle biopsies: implications for quality assurance programs. Clin Med. 2008;1:77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Idowu MO, Bekeris LG, Raab S, Ruby SG, Nakhleh RE. Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 86 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):969–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Frable WJ. Surgical pathology–second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what’s out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006 May;130(5):620–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(7):851–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI. The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010 Jul;184(1):126–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Piotrowski MM, Bessette RL, Chensue S, Cutler D, Kachalia A, Roseborough JW, et al. Learning to improve safety: false-positive pathology report results in wrongful surgery. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(3):123–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Allsbrook Jr WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Amin MB, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(1):74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Allsbrook Jr WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(1):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Oxley JD, Sen C. Error rates in reporting prostatic core biopsies. Histopathology. 2011;58(5):759–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bostwick DG, Ma J. Over-diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a prospective study of 251 cases. BJU Int. 2007;100(5):1036–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, Vollmer RT, Welch WR, Cote K, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol. 2004;22(4):295–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Thomas CW, Bainbridge TC, Thomson TA, McGahan CE, Morris WJ. Clinical impact of second pathology opinion: a longitudinal study of central genitourinary pathology review before prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2007;6(2):135–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wayment RO, Bourne A, Kay P, Tarter TH. Second opinion pathology in tertiary care of patients with urologic malignancies. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(2):194–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jara-Lazaro AR, Thike AA, Tan PH. Diagnostic issues in second opinion consultations in prostate pathology. Pathology. 2011 Jan;42(1):6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Netto GJ, Eisenberger M, Epstein JI. Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial. Urology. 2011;77(5):1155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Usami M, Hirao Y, Naito S. Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2010;183(3):952–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology. 2011;77(2):407–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. College of American Pathologists. Q-probe database. 2011. Available from: http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal.

  51. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Griffiths DF, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. The European Network of Uropathology: a novel mechanism for communication between pathologists. Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology. Intl Acad Cytol and Amer Soc Cytol. 2009;31(2):90–5.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(10):1568–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hassell L, Aldinger W, Moody C, Winters S, Gerlach K, Schwenn M, et al. Electronic capture and communication of synoptic cancer data elements from pathology reports: results of the Reporting Pathology Protocols 2 (RPP2) project. J Registry Manag. 2009;36(4):117–24 (quiz 63–5).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Penberthy LT, McClish D, Agovino P. Impact of automated data collection from urology offices: improving incidence and treatment reporting in urologic cancers. J Registry Manag. 2010;37(4):141–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bostwick Laboratories, 4355 Innslake Drive, Glen Allen, VA, 23060, USA

    David G. Bostwick M.D., M.B.A.

Authors
  1. David G. Bostwick M.D., M.B.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David G. Bostwick M.D., M.B.A. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Room 1089 Duke South, Durham, 27710, North Carolina, USA

    Thomas J. Polascik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bostwick, D.G. (2013). Quality Assurance in Prostate Biopsy Sampling, Processing, and Reporting: A New Pathologic Paradigm for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. In: Polascik, T. (eds) Imaging and Focal Therapy of Early Prostate Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-182-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-182-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-181-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-182-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation