Variability in diagnostic opinion among pathologists for single small atypical foci in prostate biopsies

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 169-177

  Van Der Kwast, Theodorus H ^a   Evans, Andrew ^a   Lockwood, Gina ^a   Tkachuk, Doug ^a,b   Bostwick, David G ^c   Epstein, Jonathan I ^d   Humphrey, Peter A ^e   Montironi, Rodolfo ^f   Van Leenders, Geert J L H ^g   Pihl, Carl Gustaf ^h   Neetens, Ingrid ⁱ   Kujala, Paula M ^j   Laurila, Marita ^j   Mazerolles, Catharine ^k   Bubendorf, Lukas ^l   Finelli, Antonio ^a   Watson, Kemp ^b   Srigley, John ^m  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b Objective Pathology Services   (Canada)

^c BOSTWICK LABORATORIES   (United States)

^d DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^g ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^h SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

ⁱ MIDDELHEIM HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^j TAMPERE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^k CHU RANGUEIL   (France)

^l UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

^m CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Diagnostics; Interobserver variation; Pathology; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Virtual microscopy

Indexed keywords

TUMOR MARKER;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; CHEMISTRY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 75649145358     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181c7997b     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Adley BP, Yang XJ. Alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunoreactivity in partial atrophy of the prostate. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:849-855.
2. Bostwick DG, Bostwick KC. Vanishing prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: incidence and long-term follow-up in 38 cases. BJU Int. 2004;94:57-58.
3. Cao D, Hafez M, Berg K, et al. Little or no residual prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy: vanishing cancer or switched specimen?: a microsatellite analysis of specimen identity. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29:467-473.
4. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: Implications for patient care. J Urol. 2006;175:820-834.
5. Fine JL, Grzybicki DM, Silowash R, et al. Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2008;39:564-572.
6. Helin H, Lundin M, Lundin J, et al.Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. Hum Pathol. 2005; 36:381-386.
7. Helin HO, Lundin ME, Laakso M, et al. Virtual microscopy in prostate histopathology: simultaneous viewing of biopsies stained sequentially with hematoxylin and eosin, and alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase/p63 immunohistochemistry. J Urol. 2006; 175:495-499.
8. Herawi M, Parwani AV, Irie J, et al. Small glandular proliferations on needle biopsies: most common benign mimickers of prostatic adenocarcinoma sent in for expert second opinion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:874-880.
9. Herkommer K, Kuefer R, Gschwend JE, et al. Pathological T0 prostate cancer without neoadjuvant therapy: clinical presentation and follow-up. Eur Urol. 2004;45:36-41.
10. Humphrey PA. Complete histologic serial sectioning of a prostate gland with adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:468-472.
11. Humphrey PA. Diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:35-42.
12. Iczkowski KA, MacLennan GT, Bostwick DG. Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: clinical significance in 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997; 21:1489-1495.
13. Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:98-107.
14. Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Valenstein PA. 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. 1999;123:687-692.
15. Postma R, de Vries SH, Roobol MJ, et al.Incidence and follow-up of patients with focal prostate carcinoma in 2 screening rounds after an interval of 4 years. Cancer. 2005;103:708-716.
16. Postma R, Schroder FH, van Leenders GJ, et al. Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)-Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. Eur Urol. 2007;52:89-97. (Pubitemid 46803013)
17. Troxel DB. Medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;30:617-619.
18. Van der Kwast TH, Wolters T, Evans A, et al. Single prostatic cancer foci on prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Supp. 2008;7:549-556.
19. Vis AN, Van der Kwast TH. Prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia and putative precursor lesions of prostate cancer: a clinical perspective. BJU Int. 2001;88:147-157.
20. Zackrisson B, Aus G, Bergdahl S, et al. The risk of finding focal cancer (less than 3 mm) remains high on re-biopsy of patients with persistently increased prostate specific antigen but the clinical significance is questionable. J Urol. 2004;171: 1500-1503.