Patient and urologist driven second opinion of prostate needle biopsies.

PURPOSE We reviewed second opinion prostate needle biopsies that were patient and urologist driven to determine how often an expert opinion resulted in a different diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Of 3,155 prostate needle biopsy consultations received during a 6-month interval 684 were sent at the request of the patient or urologist. A significant change in outside diagnosis was one that could potentially result in a change in therapy or prognosis. RESULTS The second opinion was requested by patients (21.6%), urologist (63.9%) and patients plus urologists (14.5%). The distribution of the 684 outside diagnoses was benign in 6.1%, HGPIN in 7.6%, atypical (ATYP) in 29.8% and cancer in 56.5%. In 241 cases (35.2%) a change in diagnosis was rendered upon expert review. We agreed with the majority of outside cancer, benign and HGPIN diagnoses, in contrast to only 36.8% of outside ATYP cases (p <0.0001). Uncommonly did a cancer diagnosis become a benign one or vice versa. Of changes affecting outside cancer diagnoses 73.5% were due to changes in Gleason score. The diagnosis was more likely to be changed when the consultation was requested by the urologist rather than by the patient (41.4% vs 25%, p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Cases diagnosed as ATYP have the highest likelihood of being changed upon expert review. Urologists should consider sending such cases for consultation to attempt to resolve the diagnosis as definitively benign or malignant before subjecting the patient to repeat biopsy.

[1]  A. Patchefsky,et al.  Clinical Significance of Performing Immunohistochemistry on Cases With a Previous Diagnosis of Cancer Coming to a National Comprehensive Cancer Center for Treatment or Second Opinion , 2002, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  J. S. Tsung Institutional Pathology Consultation , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  P. Walsh,et al.  Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[4]  J. Epstein,et al.  Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital , 1999, Cancer.

[5]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. , 2001, Human pathology.

[6]  A. Patchefsky,et al.  Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center , 1998, Cancer.

[7]  G. Fuller,et al.  Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice , 1997, Cancer.

[8]  A. Selman,et al.  Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  J. Epstein,et al.  How Often Does Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA-Racemase Contribute to Resolving an Atypical Diagnosis on Prostate Needle Biopsy Beyond That Provided by Basal Cell Markers? , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[10]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  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.

[12]  T. Colgan,et al.  Interinstitutional pathology consultations. A reassessment. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.

[13]  W M Murphy,et al.  Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[14]  J. Epstein,et al.  Lesions missed on prostate biopsies in cases sent in for consultation , 2003, The Prostate.

[15]  D. Theodorescu,et al.  Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma , 2001, Cancer.

[16]  J. Epstein,et al.  Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer. , 1999, Urology.

[17]  Anthony V D'Amico,et al.  The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 2004, Urologic oncology.