Patient and urologist driven second opinion of prostate needle biopsies

被引:24
作者
Chan, TY [1 ]
Epstein, JI [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Baltimore, MD 21231 USA
关键词
prostate; prostatic neoplasms; biopsy; referral and consultation;
D O I
10.1097/01.ju.0000173633.56174.c4
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: We reviewed second opinion prostate needle biopsies that were patient and urologist driven to determine how often an expert opinion resulted in a different diagnosis. Materials and Methods: Of 3,155 prostate needle biopsy consultations received during a 6-month interval 684 were sent at the request of the patient or urologist. A significant change in outside diagnosis was one that could potentially result in a change in therapy or prognosis. Results: The second opinion was requested by patients (21.6%), urologist (63.9%) and patients plus urologists (14.5%). The distribution of the 684 outside diagnoses was benign in 6.1%, HGPIN in 7.6%, atypical (ATYP) in 29.8% and cancer in 56.5%. In 241 cases (35.2%) a change in diagnosis was rendered upon expert review. We agreed with the majority of outside cancer, benign and HGPIN diagnoses, in contrast to only 36.8% of outside ATYP cases (p < 0.0001). Uncommonly did a cancer diagnosis become a benign one or vice versa. Of changes affecting outside cancer diagnoses 73.5% were due to changes in Gleason score. The diagnosis was more likely to be changed when the consultation was requested by the urologist rather than by the patient (41.4% vs 25%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Cases diagnosed as ATYP have the highest likelihood of being changed upon expert review. Urologists should consider sending such cases for consultation to attempt to resolve the diagnosis as definitively benign or malignant before subjecting the patient to repeat biopsy.
引用
收藏
页码:1390 / 1394
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Urologic pathologists [J].
Allsbrook, WC ;
Mangold, KA ;
Johnson, MH ;
Lane, RB ;
Lane, CG ;
Amin, MB ;
Bostwick, DG ;
Humphrey, PA ;
Jones, EC ;
Reuter, VE ;
Sakr, W ;
Sesterhenn, IA ;
Troncoso, P ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Epstein, JI .
HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 2001, 32 (01) :74-80
[2]  
Bruner JM, 1997, CANCER, V79, P796, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970215)79:4<796::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO
[3]  
2-V
[4]   Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer [J].
Chan, TY ;
Epstein, JI .
UROLOGY, 1999, 53 (02) :351-355
[5]  
Coblentz TR, 2001, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V91, P1284, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20010401)91:7<1284::AID-CNCR1130>3.0.CO
[6]  
2-E
[7]   Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology - Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy [J].
Epstein, JI ;
Walsh, PC ;
Sanfilippo, F .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 1996, 20 (07) :851-857
[8]  
Kronz JD, 1999, CANCER, V86, P2426, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991201)86:11<2426::AID-CNCR34>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-3
[10]   Lesions missed on prostate biopsies in cases sent in for consultation [J].
Kronz, JD ;
Milord, R ;
Wilentz, R ;
Weir, EG ;
Schreiner, SR ;
Epstein, JI .
PROSTATE, 2003, 54 (04) :310-314