Ano de Publicação: 2010
AUTORIA
Fadi Brimo, Luciana Schultz and Jonathan I. Epstein*
From the Departments of Pathology (FB, LS), Urology and Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Institutions (JIE),
Baltimore, Maryland
RESUMO
Purpose: We determined the value of mandatory second opinion pathology review
to interpret prostate needle biopsy before radical prostatectomy.
Materials and Methods: In all cases referred to our institution for radical prostatectomy
in 1 year we compared pathological parameters in original and reviewed
pathology reports, including benign, atypical or malignant diagnosis, final
Gleason score, positive core number, core highest cancer percent and perineural
invasion or extraprostatic extension. A major Gleason score discrepancy was
defined as a change to a different risk category (6, 7 and 8–10). We defined a
significant difference in the highest percent of cancer in a core as 30% or greater.
Results: Of the 855 cases originally diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma cancer
was confirmed in 844 (98.8%) by needle biopsy and prostatectomy, of which 9
(1%) were atypical and 2 (0.2%) were benign upon review. A major discrepancy in
Gleason score was present in 124 cases (14.7%), of which 57 (46.0%) were
upgraded and 67 (54%) were downgraded. Of cases with a final Gleason score of
6, 8.4% were originally diagnosed as 7 (7.8%) or 8–10 (0.6%), 21% with a final
score of 7 had an original score of 6 (13.2%) or 8–10 (7.8%) and 21 of 61 (34%) with
a score of 8–10 were originally diagnosed as 7 or less. There were 80 cases (64.5%)
of disagreement between scores 6 and 7. Of the 777 cases with the positive core
number in each report 71 (9.1%) had discrepancies. After review the positive core
number was higher in 45 cases (63.4%) and lower in 26 (36.6%). We noted a
significant difference in the highest cancer percent in a core in 76 of 844 evaluable
cases (9%) in which cancer was originally underestimated. In 60 of 76 cases
(78.9%) cancer discontinuously involved the core on review. Review revealed
perineural invasion in 138 of 844 cases (16.3%) that was not originally reported
in 37 of 138 (26.8%). In 4 cases review showed extraprostatic extension on needle
biopsy.
Conclusions: Compared to a smaller study more than 10 years ago at our
institution the rate of unconfirmed cancer was identical (1.2%). To our knowledge
this is the first study to analyze concordance upon review of the number of
positive cores and maximum percent positive in a core (each discrepancy 9%). In
a few cases mandatory second opinion on prostate needle biopsy results in
significant differences that may affect therapy.