Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning

Robert J Hoekstra; Ward J H Goossens; Alexander Beulens; Hilde van Herk; Brigiet M Hoevenaars; Joost de Baaij; Diederik M Somford; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jean-Paul A van Basten; H J Eric J Vrijhof

doi:10.1016/j.euros.2021.04.003

Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning

Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Apr 27:28:36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.04.003. eCollection 2021 Jun.

Authors

Robert J Hoekstra^{1

2

3}, Ward J H Goossens¹, Alexander Beulens¹, Hilde van Herk⁴, Brigiet M Hoevenaars⁵, Joost de Baaij^{2

3}, Diederik M Somford^{2

3}, J P Michiel Sedelaar^{3

6}, Jean-Paul A van Basten^{2

3}, H J Eric J Vrijhof^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
² Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
³ Prosper Prostate Clinic, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
⁴ Department of Pathology, PAMM Foundation Laboratory for Pathology and Medical Microbiology, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
⁵ Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
⁶ Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Background: The minimum volume standard is 100 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures per hospital in the Netherlands, so patients have to be referred to high-volume surgical centers for RARP. During preoperative work-up, prostate biopsies taken elsewhere are reassessed, with upgrading or downgrading of the initial Gleason grade group a possible consequence.

Objective: To determine if prostate biopsy reassessment leads to adjustment of the surgical plan regarding a nerve-sparing approach and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) during RARP.

Design setting and participants: For 125 men who were referred to the Prosper prostate center at Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital (CWH) in the Netherlands between 2013 and 2016, results for the initial assessment of prostate biopsy by a local uropathologist were compared to results for biopsy reassessment by dedicated uropathologists at CWH.

Results and limitations: The pathologists reached agreement in 80% of the cases. In cases for which there was disagreement (n = 25), biopsy revision involved upgrading of the initial grade group in 68% and downgrading in 32%. Biopsy reassessment led to a change in surgical plan in ten cases (8%). As a result of upgrading, ePLND was performed in three patients (2%). ePLND was omitted in one patient (1%) because of downgrading. For three patients (2%) a non-nerve-sparing procedure was planned after upgrading of the initial grade group. For four patients (3%), a unilateral nerve-sparing procedure was performed after downgrading.

Conclusions: This study shows that there is large interobserver agreement between uropathologists in the assessment of Gleason grade group in prostate biopsy specimens. Reassessment rarely leads to a change in surgical plan regarding the indication for a nerve-sparing approach and ePLND. Therefore, reassessment of prostate biopsy before radical prostatectomy can be omitted when the initial pathological assessment was performed by a dedicated uropathologist.

Patient summary: Reassessment of the initial prostate biopsy specimen for patients referred to a specialist center for robot-assisted removal of the prostate rarely influences surgical planning and can be omitted.

Keywords: Nerve-sparing; Pelvic lymph node dissection; Prostate biopsies; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; Surgical planning.