Variability in Diagnostic Opinion Among Pathologists for Single Small Atypical Foci in Prostate Biopsies

Pathologists are increasingly exposed to prostate biopsies with small atypical foci, requiring differentiation between adenocarcinoma, atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy, and a benign diagnosis. We studied the level of agreement for such atypical foci among experts in urologic pathology and all-round reference pathologists of the European Randomized Screening study of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). For this purpose, we retrieved 20 prostate biopsies with small (most <1 mm) atypical foci. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides, including 10 immunostained slides were digitalized for virtual microscopy. The lesional area was not marked. Five experts and 7 ERSPC pathologists examined the cases. Multirater κ statistics was applied to determine agreement and significant differences between experts and ERSPC pathologists. The κ value of experts (0.39; confidence interval, 0.29-0.49) was significantly higher than that of ERSPC pathologists (0.21; confidence interval, 0.14-0.27). Full (100%) agreement was reached by the 5 experts for 7 of 20 biopsies. Experts and ERSPC pathologists rendered diagnoses ranging from benign to adenocarcinoma on the same biopsy in 5 and 9 biopsies, respectively. Most of these lesions comprised between 2 and 5 atypical glands. The experts diagnosed adenocarcinoma (49%) more often than the ERSPC pathologists (32%) (P<0.001). As agreement was particularly poor for foci comprising <6 glands, we would encourage pathologists to obtain intercollegial consultation of a specialized pathologist for these lesions before a carcinoma diagnosis, whereas clinicians may consider to perform staging biopsies before engaging on deferred or definite therapy.

[1]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: clinical significance in 33 cases. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and putative precursor lesions of prostate cancer: a clinical perspective , 2001, BJU international.

[4]  R. Zarbo,et al.  Diagnostic uncertainty expressed in prostate needle biopsies. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes Study of 15,753 prostate needle biopsies in 332 institutions. , 1999, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[5]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)--Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. , 2007, European urology.

[6]  Anil V Parwani,et al.  Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. , 2008, Human pathology.

[7]  J. Epstein,et al.  Little or No Residual Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy: Vanishing Cancer or Switched Specimen?: A Microsatellite Analysis of Specimen Identity , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue , 2007, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[9]  Ximing J. Yang,et al.  Alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunoreactivity in partial atrophy of the prostate. , 2006, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Incidence and follow‐up of patients with focal prostate carcinoma in 2 screening rounds after an interval of 4 years , 2005, Cancer.

[11]  Mikael Lundin,et al.  Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. , 2005, Human pathology.

[12]  J. Epstein,et al.  Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[13]  Johan Lundin,et al.  Virtual microscopy in prostate histopathology: simultaneous viewing of biopsies stained sequentially with hematoxylin and eosin, and alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase/p63 immunohistochemistry. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[14]  P. Humphrey Complete Histologic Serial Sectioning of a Prostate Gland with Adenocarcinoma , 1993, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[15]  Monique J. Roobol,et al.  Single Prostatic Cancer Foci on Prostate Biopsy , 2008 .

[16]  D. Troxel Medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. , 2006, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[17]  A. Parwani,et al.  Small Glandular Proliferations on Needle Biopsies: Most Common Benign Mimickers of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Sent in for Expert Second Opinion , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  D. Bostwick,et al.  ‘Vanishing’ prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: incidence and long‐term follow‐up in 38 cases , 2004, BJU international.

[19]  R. Kuefer,et al.  Pathological T0 prostate cancer without neoadjuvant therapy: clinical presentation and follow-up. , 2004, European urology.

[20]  J. Hugosson,et al.  The risk of finding focal cancer (less than 3 mm) remains high on re-biopsy of patients with persistently increased prostate specific antigen but the clinical significance is questionable. , 2004, The Journal of urology.