Contemporary update on pathology-related issues on routine workup of prostate biopsy sectioning, tumor extent measurement, specimen orientation, and immunohistochemistry

Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 61-70

  Montironi, Rodolfo ^a   Lopez Beltran, Antonio ^b   Mazzucchelli, Roberta ^a   Scarpelli, Marina ^a   Galosi, Andrea B ^c   Cheng, Liang ^d  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^b Universidad de Cordoba   (Spain)

^c Murri General Hospital   (Italy)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Histological sectioning; Immunohistochemistry; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Specimen orientation; Tumor extent

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BASAL CELL; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISTANT METASTASIS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGIST; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME; UROLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE TISSUE; ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR; REVIEW;

2 METHYLACYL COENZYME A RACEMASE; NYLON;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84903764672     PISSN: 08846812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Klotz L: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: A review. Curr Urol Rep 2010;11:165-171
2. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RA, Schroder FH, de Koning HJ: Lead times and overdetection due to prostate specific antigen screening: Estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:868-878
3. Presti JC Jr: Prostate biopsy: How many cores are enough? Urol Oncol 2003;21:135-140
4. Welch HG, Albertsen PC: Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1325-1329
5. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E: Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277-300
6. Galosi AB, Muzzonigro G, Lacetera V, Mazzucchelli R: Specimen orientation by marking the peripheral end: (Potential) clinical advantages in prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer 2011; 1:1-7
7. Bostwick DG, Kahane H: Adequate histologic sectioning of prostate needle biopsies. Ann Diagn Pathol 2013;17:357-360
8. Galosi AB, Della Bella M, Polito M Jr, Muzzonigro G: A new method to embed fragments of prostate biopsy: The "Sandwich" technique, preliminary experience. Urologia 2001;68: 170-174
9. Galosi AB, Muzzonigro G: Methods to obtain more clinical and pathologic information from needle core biopsy of the prostate gland. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002;963:218-220
10. Rogatsch H, Moser P, Volgger H, Horninger W, Bartsch G, Mikuz G, Mairinger T: Diagnostic effect of an improved preembedding method of prostate needle biopsy specimens. Hum Pathol 2000;31:1102-1107
11. Bostwick DG, Meiers I: Prostate biopsy and optimization of cancer yield. Eur Urol 2006;49:415-417
12. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI: Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001;32:74-80
13. 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;77:1155-1160
14. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD: Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;180:1964-1967
15. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, Metter EJ, Landis P, Walsh PC, Epstein JI: Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007;178:2359-2364
16. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, Meng MV, Kane CJ, Perez N, Master VA, Carroll PR: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112: 2664-2670
17. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathurai R, Kava B, Manoharan M: Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: The Miami experience. BJU Int 2008;101:165-169
18. Mahamud O, van der Kwast TH, Downes MR, Evans AJ: Assessing the extent of biopsy core involvement by prostate cancer and its impact on the selection of patients for active surveillance: Is "eyeballing" accurate enough? Mod Pathol 2013;26:232A
19. Epstein JI: Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol 2011; 186:790-797
20. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA: Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27: 432-440
21. Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Corcos J, Kotar K, Bégin LR, Humphrey PA, Bismar TA: Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology 2008;53:177-183
22. Park EA, Lee HJ, Kim KG, Kim SH, Lee SE, Choe GY: Prediction of pathological stages before prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients: Analysis of 12 systematic prostate needle biopsy specimens. Int J Urol 2007;14:704-708
23. Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L: Prostate needle biopsies: Multiple variables are predictive of final tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 2004;101:527-532
24. Quintal MM, Meirelles LR, Freitas LL, Magna LA, Ferreira U, Billis A: Various morphometric measurements of cancer extent on needle prostatic biopsies: Which is predictive of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy? Int Urol Nephrol 2011;43:697-705
25. Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Wollan P, Zincke H: The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;163:174-178
26. Sebo TJ, Cheville JC, Riehle DL, Lohse CM, Pankratz VS, Myers RP, Blute ML, Zincke H: Predicting prostate carcinoma volume and stage at radical prostatectomy by assessing needle biopsy specimens for percent surface area and cores positive for carcinoma, perineural invasion, Gleason score, DNA ploidy and proliferation, and preoperative serum prostate specific antigen: A report of 454 cases. Cancer 2001; 91:2196-2204
27. Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA: Carcinoma extent in prostate needle biopsy tissue in the prediction of whole gland tumor volume in a screening population. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:442-450
28. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI: Current practice of diagnosis and reporting of prostate cancer on needle biopsy among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 2006;37:292-297
29. Descazeaud A, Rubin MA, Allory Y, Burchardt M, Salomon L, Chopin D, Abbou C, de la Taille A: What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2005;48:911-915
30. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE: Prostate needle biopsy reporting: How are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28:946-952
31. Humphrey PA: Tumor amount in prostatic tissues in relation to patient outcome and management. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:7-10
32. Montironi R, Scarpelli M, Mazzucchelli R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Montorsi F: Extent of cancer of less than 50% in any prostate needle biopsy core: How many millimeters are there? Eur Urol 2012;61:751-756
33. Epstein JI, Potter SR: The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: Implications and current controversies. J Urol 2001;166:402-410
34. Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI: Should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol 2011; 35:1351-1355
35. Fajardo DA, Epstein JI: Fragmentation of prostatic needle biopsy cores containing adenocarcinoma: The role of specimen submission. BJU Int 2010;105:172-175
36. Ali TZ, Epstein JI: False positive labeling of prostate cancer with high molecular weight cytokeratin: p63 a more specific immunomarker for basal cells. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32: 1890-1895
37. Boran C, Kandirali E, Yilmaz F, Serin E, Akyol M: Reliability of the 34βE12, keratin 5/6, p63, bcl-2, and AMACR in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. Urol Oncol 2011;29:614-623
38. Epstein JI: Diagnosis of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Histopathology 2012;60:28-40
39. Adley BP, Yang XJ: Application of alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A review. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006;28: 1-13
40. Dabir PD, Ottosen P, Hoyer S, Hamilton-Dutoit S: Comparative analysis of three- and two-antibody cocktails to AMACR and basal cell markers for the immunohistochemical diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. Diagn Pathol 2012;7:81
41. Shah RB: Clinical applications of novel ERG immunohistochemistry in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Adv Anat Pathol 2013;20:117-124
42. Verdu M, Trias I, Roman R, Rodon N, Garcia-Pelaez B, Calvo M, Dominguez A, Banus JM, Puig X: ERG expression and prostatic adenocarcinoma. Virchows Arch 2013;462:639-644