Topline/Final Diagnostic Inclusion of Relevant Histologic Findings in Surgical Pathology Reporting of Carcinoma in Prostate Biopsies

Abstract

Introduction

As the list of histologic parameters to include in surgical pathology reports of prostate cancer biopsies grows, some pathologists include this information in the microscopic description or summary sections of the report, whereas others include it in the “topline” or final diagnosis section. This prompted us to develop a multi-institutional survey to assess reporting trends among genitourinary (GU) pathologists.

Methods

A survey instrument was shared among 110 GU pathologists via surveymonkey.com. Anonymized respondent data was analyzed.

Results

Eighty-four (76%) participants completed the survey across four continents. Most participants report tumor volume quantitation (88%), number of cores involved (89%), and both Gleason grade and Grade group (93%) in their topline; 71% include percent of pattern 4, with another 16% including it depending on cancer grade; 58% include the presence of cribriform growth pattern 4, with another 11% including it depending on cancer grade. When present, most include extraprostatic extension (90%), prostatic intraductal carcinoma (77%), and perineural invasion (77%). Inclusion of atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) in the topline diagnosis was cancer grade-dependent, with 74% including AIP in Grade group 1, 61% in Grade group 2, 45% in Grade group 3, 30% in Grade group 4, and 26% in Grade group 5 cancers.

Conclusion

Certain histologic features such as Gleason grade and tumor volume/cores involved are frequently included in the topline diagnosis, whereas the incorporation of other findings are more variably included. Prostate biopsy reporting remains a dynamic process with stylistic similarities and differences existing among GU pathologists.