Lynn Schoenfield

PURPOSE: We reported on the results of a sequential cohort study comparing office based saturation prostate biopsy to traditional 10-core sampling as an initial biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on improved cancer detection of office based saturation prostate biopsy repeat biopsy, we adopted the technique as an initial biopsy strategy to improve cancer detection. Two surgeons performed 24-core saturation prostate biopsies in 139 patients undergoing initial biopsy under periprostatic local anesthesia. Indication for biopsy was an increased PSA of 2.5 ng/dl or greater in all patients. Results were compared to those of 87 patients who had previously undergone 10-core initial biopsies. RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 62 of 139 patients (44.6%) who underwent saturation biopsy and in 45 of 87 patients (51.7%) who underwent 10-core biopsy (p >0.9). Breakdown by PSA level failed to show benefit to the saturation technique for any degree PSA increase. Men with PSA 2.5 to 9.9 ng/dl were found to have cancer in 53 of 122 (43.4%) saturation biopsies and 26 of 58 (44.8%) 10-core biopsies. Complications included 3 cases of prostatitis in each group. Rectal bleeding was troublesome enough to require evaluation only in 3 men in the saturation group and 1 in the 10-core group. CONCLUSIONS: Although saturation prostate biopsy improves cancer detection in men with suspicion of cancer following a negative biopsy, it does not appear to offer benefit as an initial biopsy technique. These findings suggest that further efforts at extended biopsy strategies beyond 10 to 12 cores are not appropriate as an initial biopsy strategy.

OBJECTIVE: Grading Barrett's dysplasia at the lower end of the metaplasia-dysplasia spectrum (negative, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia) suffers from poor interobserver agreement, even among gastrointestinal pathologists. Data evaluating interobserver agreement in Barrett's mucosal biopsies with changes at the upper end of the dysplasia spectrum (high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal, and submucosal adenocarcinoma) have not been published. The accurate categorization of pretreatment biopsies drives therapeutic decision making, but if the diagnostic distinction between cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's biopsies is inconsistent, then the use of these diagnoses to make management decisions is suspect. To this end, our aim was to assess interobserver reproducibility among a group of gastrointestinal pathologists in the interpretation of preresection biopsies. METHODS: All study pathologists agreed upon the histologic criteria distinguishing four diagnostic categories, including high-grade dysplasia; high-grade dysplasia with marked distortion of glandular architecture, cannot exclude intramucosal adenocarcinoma; intramucosal adenocarcinoma; and submucosally invasive adenocarcinoma. The histologic criteria were used to independently review preresection biopsies from 163 consecutive Barrett's esophagus patients with at least high-grade dysplasia who ultimately underwent esophagectomy. Reviewers recorded the specific histologic criteria used to categorize each case and Kappa statistics were calculated to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Using kappa statistics, the overall agreement was only fair (kappa= 0.30). Agreement for high-grade dysplasia was moderate (kappa= 0.47), while agreement for high-grade dysplasia with marked architectural distortion, cannot exclude intramucosal adenocarcinoma and intramucosal adenocarcinoma were only fair (kappa= 0.21 and 0.30, respectively) and agreement for submucosal adenocarcinoma was poor (kappa= 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The overall poor interobserver reproducibility among gastrointestinal pathologists who see a high volume of Barrett's cases calls into question treatment regimens based on the assumption that high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, and submucosal adenocarcinoma can reliably be distinguished in biopsy specimens.

CONTEXT: High-resolution scanning technology provides an opportunity for pathologists to make diagnoses directly from whole slide images (WSIs), but few studies have attempted to validate the diagnoses so obtained. OBJECTIVE: To compare WSI versus microscope slide diagnoses of previously interpreted cases after a 1-year delayed re-review ("wash-out") period. DESIGN: An a priori power study estimated that 450 cases might be needed to demonstrate noninferiority, based on a null hypothesis: "The true difference in major discrepancies between WSI and microscope slide review is greater than 4%." Slides of consecutive cases interpreted by 2 pathologists 1 year prior were retrieved from files, and alternate cases were scanned at original magnification of ×20. Each pathologist reviewed his or her cases using either a microscope or imaging application. Independent pathologists identified and classified discrepancies; an independent statistician calculated major and minor discrepancy rates for both WSI and microscope slide review of the previously interpreted cases. RESULTS: The 607 cases reviewed reflected the subspecialty interests of the 2 pathologists. Study limitations include the lack of cytopathology, hematopathology, or lymphoid cases; the case mix was not enriched with difficult cases; and both pathologists had interpreted several hundred WSI cases before the study to minimize the learning curve. The major and minor discrepancy rates for WSI were 1.65% and 2.31%, whereas rates for microscope slide reviews were 0.99% and 4.93%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our assumptions and study design, diagnostic review by WSI was not inferior to microscope slide review (P < .001).

(Cancer Cell 32, 204–220; August 14, 2017) During the course of revising the manuscript, the authors inadvertently did not include the reference to a paper by Royer-Bertrand et al. in the reference list as well as the corresponding citation in the discussion of copy number variants in uveal melanoma and their consistency in high-risk primary and metastatic tumors. Royer-Bertrand et al. should have been cited in the second paragraph under the Discussion section as follows: “Prior studies have shown poorer clinical outcomes to be associated with higher chromosome 8q copy number (Royer-Bertrand et al., 2016Royer-Bertrand B. Torsello M. Rimoldi D. El Zaoui I. Cisarova K. Pescini-Gobert R. Raynaud F. Zografos L. Schalenbourg A. Speiser D. et al.Comprehensive genetic landscape of uveal melanoma by whole-genome sequencing.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2016; 99: 1190-1198Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (107) Google Scholar; Caines et al., 2015; Cassoux et al., 2014; Versluis et al., 2015).” The reference is now included below and has been added to the online version of the article, along with the citation. The authors apologize for the omission and any confusion it may have caused. Integrative Analysis Identifies Four Molecular and Clinical Subsets in Uveal MelanomaRobertson et al.Cancer CellAugust 14, 2017In BriefRobertson et al. analyze 80 uveal melanomas (UM) and divide poor-prognosis monosomy 3 UM into subsets with divergent genomic aberrations, transcriptional features, and clinical outcomes. Somatic copy number changes and DNA methylation profiles separate better-prognosis disomy 3 UM into low or intermediate risk. Full-Text PDF Open Access

PURPOSE: It has been reported that the prostate cancer detection rate in men with prostate specific antigen 2.5 ng/ml or greater undergoing saturation (20 cores or greater) prostate biopsy as an initial strategy is not higher than that in men who undergo 10 to 12 core prostate biopsy. At a median followup of 3.2 years we report the cancer detection rate on subsequent prostate biopsy in men who underwent initial saturation prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Saturation prostate biopsy was used as an initial biopsy strategy in 257 men between January 2002 and April 2006. Cancer was initially detected in 43% of the patients who underwent saturation prostate biopsy. In the 147 men with negative initial saturation prostate biopsy followup including digital rectal examination and repeat prostate specific antigen measurement was recommended at least annually. Persistently increased prostate specific antigen or an increase in prostate specific antigen was seen as an indication for repeat saturation prostate biopsy. RESULTS: During the median followup of 3.2 years after negative initial saturation prostate biopsy 121 men (82%) underwent subsequent evaluation with prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Median prostate specific antigen remained 4.0 ng/ml or greater in 57% of the men and it increased by 1 ng/ml or greater in 23%. Cancer was detected in 14 of 59 men (24%) undergoing repeat prostate biopsy for persistent clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. No significant association was demonstrated between cancer detection and initial or followup prostate specific antigen, or findings of atypia and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial saturation prostate biopsy. Cancers detected on repeat prostate biopsy were more likely to be Gleason 6 and organ confined at prostatectomy than were those diagnosed on initial saturation prostate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Previous experience suggests that, while office based saturation prostate biopsy improves cancer detection in men who have previously undergone a negative prostate biopsy, it does not improve cancer detection as an initial biopsy technique. We now report that the false-negative rate on subsequent prostate biopsy after initial saturation prostate biopsy is equivalent to that following traditional prostate biopsy. These data provide further evidence against saturation prostate biopsy as an initial strategy.