[Documentation quality of histopathology reports of prostate needle biopsies: a snapshot].

backgroundA standardized assessment of findings from prostate needle biopsies in pathology is of great importance for the individual recommendations for therapy of patients with prostate cancer. To this end criteria were developed which are formulated as recommendations in the S3 guidelines for prostate cancer and in joint instructions of the Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen (BDP, "National Association of German Pathologists") and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pathologie (DGP, "German Society of Pathology"). In this article the findings from tumor positive prostate needle biopsies taken from various institutes in Germany, were investigated exclusively to determine to what extent the recommended parameters were followed. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe study encompassed the findings from 91 patients with a mean age of 65.3 years from whom an average of 9.3 biopsy samples from different regions of the prostate were submitted. All diagnosed tumors corresponded to a standard type adenocarcinoma according to the classification of the World Health Organization (WHO) which was detected in an average of 2.5 biopsy regions per patient. The assessment was made from H & E stained serial sections which was supplemented in 11 (12.1%) cases by special staining methods and in 40 (44%) cases by immunohistochemical staining techniques. The length of the needle biopsy was documented in 88 (96.7%) cases and the tumor spread also in 88 cases. The tumor stage was reported in 16 cases (17.6%).

resultsThe Gleason grading score (GS) was reported in all 91 cases whereby the old GS was explicitly used in 1 case and the modified GS in all other cases. The allocated GS ranged from 4 to 10 whereby 8 cases were graded as ≤5, 46 as GS grade 6, 27 as GS grade 7 and 10 as GS >7. Out of 45 cases with several positive biopsy samples, 38 were uniformly graded (84.4%), 6 out of the 7 samples which were not uniformly graded were allocated a GS of 6 or 7 and 1 sample was graded as GS 6-9. In 64 cases (70.3%) the conventional 3-stage WHO grading (n=42) and the Helpap grading (n=22) were additionally used. The WHO and Helpap grading scores were found to be highly correlated with the GS grading scores and the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) grading scores derived from it (χ²-test, p<0.001), although surprising allocations were selected in isolated cases.

conclusionIn total, the only serious deficits were that in three cases (3.3%) no information was supplied on the estimated spread of the tumor in the tumor positive biopsies because this information can be decisive for therapy decisions, particularly for the selection of an active surveillance strategy. Also a relatively large number of cases were assigned a GS score ≤ 5 which is not recommended in the modified Gleason grading. Furthermore, translation of the GS into the other grading forms used revealed that the biological assessment of the GS showed clear differences between the various participating institutes. In conclusion, the findings of the pathologists as a rule incorporated all the parameters necessary for a therapy decision in accordance with the guidelines so that they can be considered comprehensive and completely valid apart from a few exceptions.