Transperineal template prostate biopsies (TTPB) are performed for assessments after unexpected negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies (TRUSB), correlation with imaging findings and during active surveillance. The impact of TTPBs on pathology has not been analysed. The European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) distributed a survey on TTPB, including how specimens were received, processed and analysed. Two hundred forty-four replies were received from 22 countries with TTPBs seen by 68.4% of the responders (n = 167). Biopsies were received in more than 12 pots in 35.2%. The number of cores embedded per cassette varied between 1 (39.5%) and 3 or more (39.5%). Three levels were cut in 48.3%, between 2 and 3 serial sections in 57.2% and unstained spare sections in 45.1%. No statistical difference was observed with TRUSB management. The number of positive cores was always reported and the majority gave extent per core (82.3%), per region (67.1%) and greatest involvement per core (69.4%). Total involvement in the whole series and continuous/discontinuous infiltrates were reported in 42.2 and 45.4%, respectively. The majority (79.4%) reported Gleason score in each site or core, and 59.6% gave an overall score. A minority (28.5%) provided a map or a diagram. For 19%, TTPB had adversely affected laboratory workload with only 27% managing to negotiate extra costs. Most laboratories process samples thoroughly and report TTPB similarly to TRUSB. Although TTPB have caused considerable extra work, it remains uncosted in most centres. Guidance is needed for workload impact and minimum standards of processing if TTPB work continues to increase.

Barts Cancer University Queen Mary University Charterhouse square EC1M London 6BQ UK

Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Hôpital Tenon HUEP AP HP Université la Sorbonne Paris France

Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

North Bristol NHS Trust Bristol UK

Service d'Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques Université de Rennes 1 Université Bretagne Loire 35042 Rennes France

University Hospital of Wales Cardiff UK

University of Bonn Bonn Germany

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Curr Opin Urol. 2017 Sep;27(5):488-494 PubMed

Am J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr;36(2):116-20 PubMed

Urol Oncol. 2015 Jul;33(7):329.e7-11 PubMed

BMC Urol. 2017 Apr 5;17 (1):28 PubMed

J Clin Pathol. 2013 Feb;66(2):120-3 PubMed

Eur Urol. 2017 Sep;72 (3):333-342 PubMed

Int J Urol. 2015 Feb;22(2):146-51 PubMed

Virchows Arch. 2013 Sep;463(3):367-77 PubMed

Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Dec;10(12):690-702 PubMed

Histopathology. 2014 Feb;64(3):405-11 PubMed

J Clin Pathol. 2003 May;56(5):336-40 PubMed

J Clin Pathol. 2003 May;56(5):341-3 PubMed

Br J Radiol. 2017 May;90(1073):20160693 PubMed

Urol Int. 2014;93(2):189-92 PubMed

CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108 PubMed

J Urol. 2000 Jan;163(1):152-7 PubMed

Lancet. 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027-35 PubMed

BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):367-71 PubMed

BJU Int. 2016 Sep;118(3):384-90 PubMed

Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2009 Apr;31(2):90-5 PubMed

Histopathology. 2013 Jan;62(2):247-56 PubMed

Virchows Arch. 2014 May;464(5):583-7 PubMed

Urol J. 2017 Mar 16;14 (2):3008-3012 PubMed