Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variation in reporting of cancer extent and benign histology in prostate biopsies among European pathologists

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is not known how uropathologists currently report histopathological features of prostate biopsies such as core length, tumor extent, perineural invasion, and non-tumor-associated features such as inflammation and hyperplasia in needle biopsies. A web-based survey was distributed among 661 members of the European Network of Uropathology. Complete replies were received from 266 pathologists in 22 European countries. Total core lengths were reported by 64 %. The numbers of cores positive for cancer was given by 79 %. Linear cancer extent was reported by 81 %, most often given in millimeters for each core (53 %) followed by the estimation of percentage of cancer in each core (40 %). A gap of benign tissue between separate cancer foci in a single core would always be subtracted by 48 % and by 63 % if cancer foci were minute and widely separated. Perineural invasion was reported by 97 %. Fat invasion by tumor was interpreted as extraprostatic extension by 81 %. Chronic and active/acute inflammation was always reported by 32 and 56 % but only if pronounced by 54 and 39 %, respectively. While most (79 %) would never diagnose benign prostatic hyperplasia on needle biopsy, 21 % would attempt to make this diagnosis. Reporting practices for prostate biopsies are variable among European pathologists. The great variation in some methodologies used suggests a need for further international consensus, in order for retrospective data to be comparable between different institutions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ayres BE et al (2012) The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in restaging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. BJU Int 109(8):1170–1176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bittner N et al (2013) Incidence and pathological features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol 190(2):509–514

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fine SW, Reuter VE (2012) Anatomy of the prostate revisited: implications for prostate biopsy and zonal origins of prostate cancer. Histopathology 60(1):142–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gleason DF, Melliger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 11:7

    Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein JI et al (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berney DM et al (2013) The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology 37(10):1518–1531

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harnden P et al (2008) Does the extent of carcinoma in prostatic biopsies predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence? A systematic review. Eur Urol 54(4):728–739

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harnden P et al (2007) The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer 109(1):13–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Montironi R et al (2011) Role of histopathology and molecular markers in the active surveillance of prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 50(Suppl 1):56–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tosoian JJ et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2185–2190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beard CJ et al (2004) Perineural invasion is associated with increased relapse after external beam radiotherapy for men with low-risk prostate cancer and may be a marker for occult, high-grade cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(1):19–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. D'Amico AV et al (2001) Perineural invasion as a predictor of biochemical outcome following radical prostatectomy for select men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 165(1):126–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Eggener SE et al (2009) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 181(4):1635–1641, discussion 1641

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wills ML et al (1998) Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology 51(5):759–764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huland H et al (1996) Preoperative prediction of tumor heterogeneity and recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostatic carcinoma with digital rectal, examination prostate specific antigen and the results of 6 systematic biopsies. J Urol 155(4):1344–1347

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lotan Y et al (2004) The percent of biopsy cores positive for cancer is a predictor of advanced pathological stage and poor clinical outcomes in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol 171(6 Pt 1):2209–2214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rajab R et al (2010) Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort. Virchows Arch 457(5):547–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bostwick DG et al (1996) Prediction of capsular perforation and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. J Urol 155(4):1361–1367

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ravery V et al (2000) Percentage of cancer on biopsy cores accurately predicts extracapsular extension and biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for T1-T2 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 37(4):449–455

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brimo F et al (2008) Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology 53(2):177–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Kwast T 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(3):367–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Hussain T, Carter HB, Epstein JI (2011) Significance of prostate adenocarcinoma perineural invasion on biopsy in patients who are otherwise candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 186(2):470–473

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ding W et al (2012) Twelve-month prostate-specific antigen values and perineural invasion as strong independent prognostic variables of long-term biochemical outcome after prostate seed brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84(4):962–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Elharram M et al (2012) Perineural invasion on prostate biopsy does not predict adverse pathological outcome. Can J Urol 19(6):6567–6572

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sung MT, Eble JN, Cheng L (2006) Invasion of fat justifies assignment of stage pT3a in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Pathology 38(4):309–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Joshi A, Shah V, Varma M (2009) Intraprostatic fat in a prostatic needle biopsy: a case report and review of the literature. Histopathology 54(7):912–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yli-Hemminki TH et al (2013) Histological inflammation and risk of subsequent prostate cancer among men with initially elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial. BJU Int 112(6):735–741

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rowe EW et al (2006) Incidental acute prostatic inflammation is associated with a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen than other benign conditions of the prostate: a prospective screening study. BJU Int 97(5):1039–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berger RE et al (1997) Bacteria in the prostate tissue of men with idiopathic prostatic inflammation. J Urol 157(3):863–865

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sfanos K, DeMarzo A (2012) Prostate cancer and inflammation: the evidence. Histopathology 60(1):199–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Karakiewicz PI et al (2007) Chronic inflammation is negatively associated with prostate cancer and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy. Int J Clin Pract 61(3):425–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhao C, Venigalla S, Miyamoto H (2012) Chronic inflammation on initial benign prostate biopsy is a negative predictor of subsequent cancer detection. Pathol Int 62(11):774–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

DMB is supported by Orchid.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK

    D. M. Berney

  2. Fundacio Puigvert-University Autonomous, Barcelona, Spain

    F. Algaba

  3. Centre de Pathologie Amiens Picardie, Paris, France

    P. Camparo

  4. Hopital La Pitié-Salpetrière, Paris, France

    E. Compérat

  5. University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

    D. Griffiths & M. Varma

  6. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    G. Kristiansen

  7. Cordoba University Medical School, Cordoba, Spain

    A. Lopez-Beltran

  8. Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy

    R. Montironi

  9. Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    L. Egevad

  10. Centre for Molecular Oncology, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

    D. M. Berney

Authors
  1. D. M. Berney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Algaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Camparo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Compérat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Griffiths
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Lopez-Beltran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. Montironi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Varma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. L. Egevad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. M. Berney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berney, D.M., Algaba, F., Camparo, P. et al. Variation in reporting of cancer extent and benign histology in prostate biopsies among European pathologists. Virchows Arch 464, 583–587 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1554-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1554-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation