PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12856645

Pathologic features the urologist should expect on a prostate biopsy.

Abstract

In recent years, the pathological evaluation of prostate biopsy specimens has made great improvements in diagnostic accuracy and comprehensiveness. In this article, we review major pathological findings on prostate biopsy, their interpretation and reporting, as well as their clinical significance and utility. We discuss especially the clinically relevant histological features in either a positive or negative biopsy. We emphasize that both Gleason score and extent of cancer involvement in a needle core biopsy are important predictors of clinical outcome after either radical prostatectomy or radiation. Special issues regarding diagnosis and grading of minimal cancer on needle core biopsies are discussed. We also highlight the current standards on high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation on needle core biopsies. In summary, the pathology reports on needle biopsies are far beyond the simple presence or absence of cancer; they contain invaluable information to clinicians on patient management and counseling.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mingxin Che, Wael Sakr, David Grignon. Pathologic features the urologist should expect on a prostate biopsy.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1078-1439(03)00008-5

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↗