Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Renal tumor biopsy (RTB) for the characterization of small renal masses (SRMs) has not been widely adopted despite reported safety and accuracy. Without pretreatment biopsy, patients with benign tumors are frequently overtreated. OBJECTIVE:To assess the diagnostic rate of RTBs, to determine their concordance with surgical pathology, and to assess their impact on management. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:This is a single-institution retrospective study of 529 patients with biopsied solid SRMs ≤4 cm in diameter. RTBs were performed to aid in clinical management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/METHODS:Diagnostic and concordance rates were presented using proportions. Factors that contributed to a diagnostic biopsy were identified using a multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The first biopsy was diagnostic in 90% (n=476) of cases. Of the nondiagnostic biopsies, 24 patients underwent a second biopsy of which 83% were diagnostic. When both were combined, RTBs yielded an overall diagnostic rate of 94%. Following RTB, treatment could have been avoided in at least 26% of cases because the lesion was benign. Tumor size and exophytic location were significantly associated with biopsy outcome. RTB histology and nuclear grade were highly concordant with final pathology (93% and 94%, respectively). Adverse events were low (8.5%) and were all self-limited with the exception of one. Although excellent concordance between RTB and final pathology was observed, only a subset of patients underwent surgery following biopsy. Thus it is possible that some patients were misdiagnosed. CONCLUSIONS:RTB of SRMs provided a high rate of diagnostic accuracy, and more than a quarter were benign. Routine RTB for SRMs informs treatment decisions and diminishes unnecessary intervention. Our results support its systematic use and suggest that a change in clinical paradigm should be considered. PATIENT SUMMARY/RESULTS:Renal tumor biopsy (RTB) for pretreatment identification of the pathology of small renal masses (SRMs) is safe and reliable and decreases unnecessary treatment. Routine RTB should be considered in all patients with an indeterminate SRM for which treatment is being considered.

As technological advancements continue to transform the practice of pathology, new adopters of these technologies will look to guidelines on how best to incorporate them with an eye to preserving and enhancing patient safety and diagnostic quality. Telepathology, using a variety of digital pathology modalities, has tremendous potential to achieve that goal. Pathology departments are increasingly looking to implement different digital pathology platforms, whole slide imaging (WSI) systems in particular, for a broad range of applications in patient care. WSI allows for the acquisition, management and review of completely digitised slides as would be done with a light microscope. WSI also facilitates image analysis that cannot be carried out by a pathologist using traditional microscopy. Over the last few years, the Digital Pathology Association, The Royal College of Pathologists, College of American Pathologists, Canadian Association of Pathologists, the American Telemedicine Association and the Society of Toxicologic Pathology have published guidelines for validating and implementing digital pathology systems. This review summarises, compares and contrasts these published guidelines and discusses pertinent issues that need to be addressed as the guidelines are revised in the future.

Percutaneous needle core biopsy has become acceptable for classifying renal tumours and guiding patient management in the setting of an incidentally-detected small renal mass (SRM), defined as an asymptomatic, non-palpable mass <4cm in maximum dimension. Long-held concerns preventing the incorporation of biopsies into routine patient care, including the perception of poor diagnostic yield and risks of complications such as bleeding or biopsy tract seeding, have largely been disproven. While needle biopsies for SRMs have traditionally been performed in academic centres, pathologists based in non-academic centres can expect to encounter these specimens as urologists and/or interventional radiologist trainees complete their training programs and begin work in non-academic centres. This review covers the rationale for performing these biopsies, the expected diagnostic yield, relevant differential diagnoses and an approach to classifying SRMs based on limited samples as well as the use of immunohistochemical (IHC) staining panels to aid in this process. There is also an undeniable learning curve for pathologists faced with reporting these biopsies and a number of issues and potential pitfalls attributable to sampling must be kept in mind by pathologists and clinicians alike.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine if the integration of diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided biopsy would improve target delineation for focal salvage therapy in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Between September 2008 and March 2011, 30 men with biochemical failure after radiation therapy for prostate cancer provided written informed consent and were enrolled in a prospective clinical trial approved by the institutional research ethics board. An integrated diagnostic MR imaging and interventional biopsy procedure was performed with a 1.5-T MR imager by using a prototype table and stereotactic transperineal template. Multiparametric MR imaging (T2-weighted, dynamic contrast material-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted sequences) was followed by targeted biopsy of suspicious regions and systematic sextant sampling. Biopsy needle locations were imaged and registered to diagnostic images. Two observers blinded to clinical data and the results of prior imaging studies delineated tumor boundaries. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) was calculated based on generalized linear models by using biopsy as the reference standard to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. RESULTS:Twenty-eight patients were analyzed. Most patients (n = 22) had local recurrence, with 82% (18 of 22) having unifocal disease. When multiparametric volumes from two observers were combined, it increased the apparent overall tumor volume by 30%; however, volumes remained small (mean, 2.9 mL; range, 0.5-8.3 mL). Tumor target boundaries differed between T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted sequences (mean Dice coefficient, 0.13-0.35). Diagnostic accuracy in the identification of tumors improved with a multiparametric approach versus a strictly T2-weighted or dynamic contrast-enhanced approach through an improvement in sensitivity (observer 1, 0.65 vs 0.35 and 0.44, respectively; observer 2, 0.82 vs 0.64 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05) and improved further with a 5-mm expansion margin (Az = 0.85 vs 0.91 for observer 2). After excluding three patients with fewer than six informative biopsy cores and six patients with inadequately stained margins, MR-guided biopsy enabled more accurate delineation of the tumor target volume be means of exclusion of false-positive results in 26% (five of 19 patients), false-negative results in 11% (two of 19 patients) and by guiding extension of tumor boundaries in 16% (three of 19 patients). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The integration of guided biopsy with diagnostic MR imaging is feasible and alters delineation of the tumor target boundary in a substantial proportion of patients considering focal salvage.

Active surveillance (AS) is an important management option for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. The clinical parameters for patient selection and definition of progression for AS protocols are evolving as data from several large cohorts matures. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters play in identifying appropriate candidates for AS. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists. This report highlights the importance of accurate pathology reporting as a critical component of these protocols.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer remains a significant public health problem. Recent publications of randomized trials and the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations have drawn attention to overtreatment of localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Active surveillance, in which patients undergo regular visits with serum prostate-specific antigen tests and repeat prostate biopsies, rather than aggressive treatment with curative intent, may address overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer. It is apparent that a greater awareness of the critical role of pathologists in determining eligibility for active surveillance is needed. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To review the state of current knowledge about the role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer and to provide a multidisciplinary report focusing on pathologic parameters important to the successful identification of patients likely to succeed with active surveillance, to determine the role of molecular tests in increasing the safety of active surveillance, and to provide future directions. DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review of literature on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, pathologic parameters important for appropriate stratification, and issues regarding interobserver reproducibility. Expert panels were created to delineate the fundamental questions confronting the clinical and pathologic aspects of management of men on active surveillance. RESULTS:Expert panelists identified pathologic parameters important for management and the related diagnostic and reporting issues. Consensus recommendations were generated where appropriate. CONCLUSIONS:Active surveillance is an important management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters have in identifying appropriate candidates for active surveillance. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists with accurate pathology reporting.