Prostate needle biopsy processing: a survey of laboratory practice across Europe

Aim To determine the degree of variation in the handling of prostate needle biopsies (PBNx) in laboratories across Europe. Methods A web based survey was emailed to members of the European Network of Uropathology and the British Association of Urological Pathologists. Results Responses were received from 241 laboratories in 15 countries. PNBx were generally taken by urologists (93.8%) or radiologists (23.7%) but in 8.7% were also taken by non-medical personnel such as radiographers, nurses or biomedical assistants. Of the responding laboratories, 40.8% received cores in separate containers, 42.3% processed one core/block, 54.2% examined three levels/block, 49.4% examined one H&E section/level and 56.1% retained spare sections for potential immunohistochemistry. Of the laboratories, 40.9% retained unstained spares for over a year while 36.2% discarded spares within 1 month of reporting. Only two (0.8%) respondents routinely performed immunohistochemistry on all PNBx. There were differences in laboratory practice between the UK and the rest of Europe (RE). Procurement of PNBx by non-medical personnel was more common in the UK. RE laboratories more commonly received each core in a separate container, processed one core/block, examined fewer levels/block and examined more H&E sections/level. RE laboratories also retained spares for potential immunohistochemistry less often and for shorter periods. Use of p63 as the sole basal cell marker was more common in RE. Conclusions There are marked differences in procurement, handling and processing of PNBx in laboratories across Europe. This data can help the development of best practice guidelines.

[1]  Lars Egevad,et al.  The European Network of Uropathology: a novel mechanism for communication between pathologists. , 2009, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[2]  R. Dhir Aberrant Diffuse Expression of p63 in Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate on Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy: Report of 21 Cases , 2009 .

[3]  D. Berney,et al.  Variations in the processing of prostatic needle cores in the UK; what is safe? , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[4]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[5]  J. Epstein,et al.  Use of intervening unstained slides for immunohistochemical stains for high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies. , 1999, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[6]  D. Brat,et al.  How often are diagnostic features missed with less extensive histologic sampling of prostate needle biopsy specimens? , 1999, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[7]  W. Allsbrook,et al.  Needle biopsies of the prostate: what constitutes adequate histologic sampling? , 1998, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[8]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Diagnostic effect of complete histologic sampling of prostate needle biopsy specimens. , 1998, American journal of clinical pathology.

[9]  A. Renshaw Adequate tissue sampling of prostate core needle biopsies. , 1997, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  D. Wood,et al.  Single focus of adenocarcinoma in the prostate biopsy specimen is not predictive of the pathologic stage of disease. , 1996, Urology.