Background: The prostate biopsy report is key for risk stratification of prostate cancer patients and subsequent therapeutic decision-making. However, due to the inclusion of a multitude of additional parameters its interpretation is becoming more challenging.
Objectives: We aimed to determine how urologists currently interpret prostate biopsy reports, in particular how they consider different histopathological parameters for therapy decision-making.
Materials and methods: A survey was sent to all urology practices in Germany with the help of the BDU (Berufsverband der Deutschen Urologen e. V.). In total, there were 106 complete responses that could be included for further analyses.
Results: Most urologists consider the number of positive cores and relative tumor burden (%) per core as crucial for the assessment of tumor extension. In case of targeted biopsies, the majority of urologists prefers a separate statement of positive cores per random biopsy scheme and per region of interest, respectively. The core with the highest Gleason score is mostly the basis for therapy decision-making (versus the overall Gleason score). Proportion of Gleason 4 pattern also seems to be critical for prostate cancer management. Only half of the urologists demand reporting of the new ISUP/WHO (International Society of Urological Pathology/World Health Organization) grade groups. Additional parameters claimed are Ki67, prostate-specific membrane antigen status, presence of intraductal or neuroendocrine component of the tumor.
Conclusions: Our survey shows that there is no standardized reporting for prostate biopsies and that the interpretation of prostate biopsy reports varies among urologists. Further studies and guideline recommendations are necessary to establish a standardized reporting scheme for prostate biopsies.
Keywords: Pathological report; Practice pattern; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Prostate needle biopsy.