Human Pathology
Volume 37, Issue 3 , Pages 292-297 , March 2006

Current practice of diagnosis and reporting of prostate cancer on needle biopsy among genitourinary pathologists

  • Lars Egevad, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska Hospital, SE-171 7 Stockholm, Sweden
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • William C. Allsbrook Jr., MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912, USA
    • Department of Surgery (Urology), Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912, USA
    • ,
  • Jonathan I. Epstein, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA
    • Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA
    • Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA

Received 13 September 2005 ,Revised 25 October 2005 ,Accepted 27 October 2005.

References 

  1. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:5–9
  2. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. The percentage of prostate needle biopsy cores with carcinoma from the more involved side of the biopsy as a predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Cancer. 2003;98:2344–2350
  3. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol. 2003;170:1792–1797
  4. Egan AJ, Bostwick DG. Prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer based on needle biopsy findings: perineural invasion lacks significance on multivariate analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:1496–1500
  5. Epstein JI, Potter SR. The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and current controversies. J Urol. 2001;166:402–410
  6. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:995–1000
  7. Boccon-Gibod L, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Bono A. Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2004;46:177–181
  8. Murphy WM, Ramsey J, Soloway MS. A better nuclear fixative for diagnostic bladder and prostate biopsies. J Urol Pathol. 1993;1:79–87
  9. Shah RB, Zhou M, LeBlanc M, Snyder M, Rubin MA. Comparison of the basal cell-specific markers, 34betaE12 and p63, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1161–1168
  10. Zhou M, Shah R, Shen R, Rubin MA. Basal cell cocktail (34betaE12 + p63) improves the detection of prostate basal cells. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:365–371
  11. Jiang Z, Woda BA, Rock KL, et al. P504S: a new molecular marker for the detection of prostate carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:1397–1404
  12. Zhou M, Aydin H, Kanane H, Epstein JI. How often does alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase contribute to resolving an atypical diagnosis on prostate needle biopsy beyond that provided by basal cell markers?. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:239–243
  13. Green R, Epstein JI. Use of intervening unstained slides for immunohistochemical stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:567–570
  14. Baisden BL, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Perineural invasion, mucinous fibroplasia, and glomerulations: diagnostic features of limited cancer on prostate needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:918–924
  15. Pacelli A, Lopez-Beltran A, Egan AJ, Bostwick DG. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:543–546
  16. Varma M, Lee MW, Tamboli P, et al. Morphologic criteria for the diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsy specimens. A study of 250 consecutive cases in a routine surgical pathology practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:554–561
  17. Bostwick DG, Wollan P, Adlakha K. Collagenous micronodules in prostate cancer. A specific but infrequent diagnostic finding. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:444–447
  18. Epstein JI. Diagnostic criteria of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol. 1995;26:223–229
  19. Carstens PH. Perineural glands in normal and hyperplastic prostates. J Urol. 1980;123:686–688
  20. Cohen RJ, Stables S. Intraprostatic fat. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:424–425
  21. Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M. The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2001;88:716–721
  22. Rubin MA, Dunn R, Kambham N, Misick CP, O'Toole KM. Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy?. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:1634–1640
  23. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:477–478
  24. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005;216:20–33
  25. Cupp MR, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE. The volume of prostate cancer in the biopsy specimen cannot reliably predict the quantity of cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen on an individual basis. J Urol. 1995;153:1543–1548
  26. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166:104–109

PII: S0046-8177(05)00603-9

doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.10.011

Human Pathology
Volume 37, Issue 3 , Pages 292-297 , March 2006

Article Tools