Optimization of Initial Prostate Biopsy in Clinical Practice: Sampling, Labeling and Specimen Processing

No AccessJournal of UrologyReview Article1 Jun 2013Optimization of Initial Prostate Biopsy in Clinical Practice: Sampling, Labeling and Specimen Processing Marc A. Bjurlin, H. Ballentine Carter, Paul Schellhammer, Michael S. Cookson, Leonard G. Gomella, Dean Troyer, Thomas M. Wheeler, Steven Schlossberg, David F. Penson, and Samir S. Taneja Marc A. BjurlinMarc A. Bjurlin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author , H. Ballentine CarterH. Ballentine Carter Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author , Paul SchellhammerPaul Schellhammer Eastern Virginia Medical School, Urology of Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia More articles by this author , Michael S. CooksonMichael S. Cookson Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , Leonard G. GomellaLeonard G. Gomella Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania More articles by this author , Dean TroyerDean Troyer Pathology Sciences Medical Group, Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, and Departments of Pathology, and Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk Virginia More articles by this author , Thomas M. WheelerThomas M. Wheeler Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas More articles by this author , Steven SchlossbergSteven Schlossberg Yale School of Medicine, Yale New Haven Health System, New Haven, Connecticut More articles by this author , David F. PensonDavid F. Penson Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author , and Samir S. TanejaSamir S. Taneja Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.072AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: An optimal prostate biopsy in clinical practice is based on a balance among adequate detection of clinically significant prostate cancers (sensitivity), assuredness regarding the accuracy of negative sampling (negative predictive value), limited detection of clinically insignificant cancers and good concordance with whole gland surgical pathology results to allow accurate risk stratification and disease localization for treatment selection. Inherent within this optimization is variation of the core number, location, labeling and processing for pathological evaluation. To date, there is no consensus in this regard. The purpose of this review is to 1) define the optimal number and location of biopsy cores during primary prostate biopsy among men with suspected prostate cancer, 2) define the optimal method of labeling prostate biopsy cores for pathological processing which will provide relevant and necessary clinical information for all potential clinical scenarios, and 3) determine the maximal number of prostate biopsy cores allowable within a specimen jar which would not preclude accurate histological evaluation of the tissue. Materials and Methods: A bibliographic search using PubMed® covering the period up to July 2012 yielded approximately 550 articles. Articles were reviewed and categorized based on which of the 3 objectives of this review was addressed. Data were extracted, analyzed and summarized. Recommendations are provided based on this literature review and our clinical experience. Results: The use of 10 to 12-core extended sampling protocols increases cancer detection rates compared to traditional sextant sampling methods and reduces the likelihood of repeat biopsy by increasing negative predictive value, ultimately allowing more accurate risk stratification without increasing the likelihood of detecting insignificant cancers. As the number of cores increases above 12, the increase in diagnostic yield becomes marginal. Only limited evidence supports the use of initial biopsy schemes involving more than 12 cores or saturation. Apical and laterally directed sampling of the peripheral zone increases cancer detection rate, reduces the need for repeat biopsies and predicts pathological features on prostatectomy while transition zone biopsies do not. There are little data to suggest that knowing the exact site of an individual positive biopsy core provides meaningful clinical information. However, determining laterality of cancer on biopsy may be helpful for predicting sites of extracapsular extension and therapeutic planning. Placement of multiple biopsy cores in a single container (greater than 2) appears to compromise pathological evaluation, which can reduce cancer detection rate and increase the likelihood of equivocal diagnoses. Conclusions: A 12-core systematic biopsy that incorporates apical and far-lateral cores in the template distribution allows maximal cancer detection, avoids repeat biopsy, and provides information adequate for identifying men who need therapy and planning that therapy while minimizing the detection of occult, indolent prostate cancers. This literature review does not provide compelling evidence that individual site specific labeling of cores benefits clinical decision making regarding the management of prostate cancer. Based on the available literature, we recommend packaging no more than 2 cores in each jar to avoid reduction of the cancer detection rate through inadequate tissue sampling. References 1 : Extended and saturation needle biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep2004; 5: 226. Google Scholar 2 : NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Prostate Cancer Early Detection. Version 1.2012, 2012. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed February 10, 2013. Google Scholar 3 : Systematic development of clinical practice guidelines for prostate biopsies: a 3-year Italian project. Anticancer Res2007; 27: 659. Google Scholar 4 : CUA guidelines on prostate biopsy methodology. Can Urol Assoc J2010; 4: 89. Google Scholar 5 : Current practice of diagnosis and reporting of prostate cancer on needle biopsy among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol2006; 37: 292. Google Scholar 6 : Needle biopsies of the prostate: what constitutes adequate histologic sampling?. Arch Pathol Lab Med1998; 122: 833. Google Scholar 7 : A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol2000; 163: 152. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol2006; 175: 1605. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol2007; 52: 430. Google Scholar 10 : Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology2003; 61: 1181. Google Scholar 11 : Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur UrolJune 9, 2012; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 12 : The utility of apical anterior horn biopsies in prostate cancer detection. Urol Oncol2003; 21: 361. Google Scholar 13 : Importance of additional “extreme” anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology2010; 75: 1034. Google Scholar 14 : Value of systematic transition zone biopsies in the early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol1996; 155: 605. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. J Urol1997; 158: 2168. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol1998; 159: 471. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during followup after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol2008; 179: 1746. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Anterior apical biopsy: is it useful for prostate cancer detection?. Int J Urol2008; 15: 900. Google Scholar 19 : Routine transition zone and seminal vesicle biopsies in all patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies are not indicated. J Urol1997; 157: 204. Link, Google Scholar 20 : Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol2006; 49: 49. Google Scholar 21 : Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology2006; 67: 379. Google Scholar 22 : Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol2003; 169: 136. Link, Google Scholar 23 : Saturation biopsy improves preoperative Gleason scoring of prostate cancer. Pathol Res Pract2009; 205: 259. Google Scholar 24 : Radical prostatectomy: the value of preoperative, individually labeled apical biopsies. J Urol2000; 164: 754. Link, Google Scholar 25 : Prostatic transition zone directed needle biopsies uncommonly sample clinically relevant transition zone tumors. J Urol2009; 182: 1337. Link, Google Scholar 26 : Six additional systematic lateral cores enhance sextant biopsy prediction of pathological features at radical prostatectomy. J Urol2004; 171: 204. Link, Google Scholar 27 : Impact of increased number of biopsies on the nature of prostate cancer identified. J Urol2006; 176: 63. Link, Google Scholar 28 : Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst2007; 99: 1484. Google Scholar 29 : Does site specific labeling of sextant biopsy cores predict the site of extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy surgical specimen?. J Urol1999; 162: 1352. Link, Google Scholar 30 : A comparison of extended biopsy and sextant biopsy schemes for predicting the pathological stage of prostate cancer. J Urol2004; 171: 2203. Link, Google Scholar 31 : Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. J Urol2005; 173: 450. Link, Google Scholar 32 : Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol2004; 171: 1844. Link, Google Scholar 33 : Does site-specific labelling and individual processing of sextant biopsies improve the accuracy of prostate biopsy in predicting pathological stage in patients with T1c prostate cancer?. BJU Int2002; 89: 543. Google Scholar 34 : Sextant prostate biopsies predict side and sextant site of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol2002; 168: 105. Link, Google Scholar 35 : An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol1996; 156: 1375. Link, Google Scholar 36 : Validation of criteria used to predict extraprostatic cancer extension: a tool for use in selecting patients for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol2005; 174: 1262. Link, Google Scholar 37 : Location of a positive biopsy as a predictor of surgical margin status and extraprostatic disease in radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2006; 97: 259. Google Scholar 38 : Individual submission and embedding of prostate biopsies decreases rates of equivocal pathology reports. Urology2004; 63: 83. Google Scholar 39 : The impact of core biopsy fragmentation in prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol2010; 42: 965. Google Scholar 40 : Fragmentation of prostatic needle biopsy cores containing adenocarcinoma: the role of specimen submission. BJU Int2010; 105: 172. Google Scholar 41 Yfantis HG, Loffe OB and Silverberg SG: Prostate core biopsies processing: evaluating current practice (abstract 1447). Presented at United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois 2002. Google Scholar 42 : Individual prostate biopsy core embedding facilitates maximal tissue representation. J Urol2002; 168: 496. Link, Google Scholar 43 : Diagnostic effect of an improved preembedding method of prostate needle biopsy specimens. Hum Pathol2000; 31: 1102. Google Scholar 44 : Tissue-marking scheme for a cost-effective extended prostate biopsy protocol. Urol Oncol2009; 27: 21. Google Scholar © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMarks L and Natarajan S (2020) Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Freehand versus 3-Dimensional Template Mapping Biopsy Using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Device in Biopsy Naïve Men. Letter.Journal of Urology, VOL. 205, NO. 6, (1843-1843), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021.Feuer Z, Meng X, Rosenkrantz A, Kasivisvanathan V, Moore C, Huang R, Deng F, Lepor H, Wysock J, Huang W and Taneja S (2020) Application of the PRECISION Trial Biopsy Strategy to a Contemporary Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Cohort—How Many Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers are Missed?Journal of Urology, VOL. 205, NO. 3, (740-747), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021.Wang A, Oonnor L, Yerram N, Long L, Zeng J, Mehralivand S, Harmon S, Lebastchi A, Ahdoot M, Gomella P, Gurram S, Choyke P, Merino M, Shih J, Wood B, Turkbey B and Pinto P (2020) PI-RADS® Category as a Predictor of Progression to Unfavorable Risk Prostate Cancer in Men on Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 6, (1229-1235), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020.Stone N, Crawford E, Skouteris V, Arangua P, Metsinis P, Lucia M, La Rosa F and Werahera P (2019) The Ratio of the Number of Biopsy Specimens to Prostate Volume (Biopsy Density) Greater Than 1.5 Improves the Prostate Cancer Detection Rate in Men Undergoing Transperineal Biopsy of the ProstateJournal of Urology, VOL. 202, NO. 2, (264-271), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019.Lewicki P, Shoag J, Golombos D, Oromendia C, Ballman K, Halpern J, Stone B, O’Malley P, Barbieri C and Scherr D (2016) Prognostic Significance of a Negative Prostate Biopsy: An Analysis of Subjects Enrolled in a Prostate Cancer Screening TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 197, NO. 4, (1014-1019), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017.Rosenkrantz A, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt S, Eggener S, Gaitonde K, Haider M, Margolis D, Marks L, Pinto P, Sonn G and Taneja S (2016) Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SARJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 6, (1613-1618), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016.Delongchamps N, Portalez D, Bruguière E, Rouvière O, Malavaud B, Mozer P, Fiard G and Cornud F (2016) Are Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Targeted Biopsies Noninferior to Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Systematic Biopsies for the Detection of Prostate Cancer?Journal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 4, (1069-1075), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2016.Taneja S (2016) Re: Gleason Misclassification Rate is Independent of Number of Biopsy Cores in Systematic BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 2, (413-414), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016.Thompson J, van Leeuwen P, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Pulbrook M, Böhm M, Haynes A, Hayen A and Stricker P (2015) The Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Significant Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 5, (1428-1435), Online publication date: 1-May-2016.Bjurlin M, Meng X, Le Nobin J, Wysock J, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz A and Taneja S (2014) Optimization of Prostate Biopsy: the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Detection, Localization and Risk AssessmentJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 3, (648-658), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014.Taneja S (2014) Re: Fragmentation of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Cores is Influenced by the Method of Specimen RetrievalJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 1, (127-128), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014.Thompson J, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Ponsky L, Pulbrook M, Böhm M, Haynes A, Hayen A and Stricker P (2014) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Diagnostic Biopsy Detects Significant Prostate Cancer and could Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies and Over Detection: A Prospective StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 1, (67-74), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014. Volume 189Issue 6June 2013Page: 2039-2046 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsprostatic neoplasmsbiopsypathologyAcknowledgmentsDr. Ming Zhou, Department of Pathology, New York University, provided the images of the prostate biopsy slides.MetricsAuthor Information Marc A. Bjurlin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author H. Ballentine Carter Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author Paul Schellhammer Eastern Virginia Medical School, Urology of Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia More articles by this author Michael S. Cookson Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Leonard G. Gomella Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania More articles by this author Dean Troyer Pathology Sciences Medical Group, Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, and Departments of Pathology, and Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk Virginia More articles by this author Thomas M. Wheeler Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas More articles by this author Steven Schlossberg Yale School of Medicine, Yale New Haven Health System, New Haven, Connecticut More articles by this author David F. Penson Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee More articles by this author Samir S. Taneja Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...