PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12719451

Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies.

Abstract

The reported detection rate of prostate cancer, lesions suspicious for cancer, and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) in needle biopsies is highly variable. In part, technical factors, including the quality of the biopsies, the tissue processing, and histopathological reporting, may account for these differences. It has been thought that standardisation of tissue processing might reduce the observed variations in detection rate. Consensus among the members of the pathology committee of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) concerning the optimal methodology of tissue embedding resulting in guidelines for prostatic needle biopsy processing was reached. The adoption of an unequivocal and uniform way of reporting lesions encountered in prostatic needle biopsies is considered helpful for decision taking by the clinician. The definition of parameters for quality control of prostatic needle biopsy diagnostics will further facilitate clinical epidemiological multicentre studies of prostate cancer.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Th H van der Kwast, C Lopes, C Santonja, C-G Pihl, I Neetens, P Martikainen, S Di Lollo, L Bubendorf, R F Hoedemaeker, Members of the pathology committee of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. 2003. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.56.5.336

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Targeting difficult accessible breast lesions: MRI-guided needle localization using a freehand technique in a 3.0 T closed bore magnet.

PURPOSE: To report the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided needle localization for diagnosis of MRI detected suspicious breast lesions located in difficult accessible regions of the breast, using the freehand method in a 3.0 T closed bore magnet. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In five patients with five MRI-only breast lesions underwent MRI-guided needle localization for histopathologic evaluation of the lesions. All interventional procedures were performed in a 3.0 T MRI system with the patient in prone position and by using a dedicated phased array breast coil. MRI-guided needle localizations were performed by using a freehand technique. In our study, the high-resolution scan allowed preprocedural localization of all lesions without use of contrast enhancement. In all cases contrast-enhanced MRI was performed after insertion of the wire to confirm the tip of the wire in direct contact with the enhancing lesion. RESULTS: Needle localizations were performed in five patients. Histopathologic evaluation of tissue after surgery excision biopsy revealed one lymph node, three invasive ductal carcinoma and one ductal carcinoma in situ. Lesion size varied from 6 to 30 mm. Mean duration time was 25 min. No complications occurred during the intervention method. In the patient with the benign lesion control MRI of the breast after 6 months confirmed lesion removal. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided needle localization by using a freehand technique in a 3.0 T closed bore magnet is a safe and accurate method for diagnosis of difficult accessible breast lesions only visible on MRI.

Biopsy, Needle↗