| Abstract: |
Purpose: To survey urologic clinicians regarding interpretation of and practice patterns in relation to emerging aspects of prostate cancer grading, including quantification of high-grade disease, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and impact of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted needle biopsy. Materials and methods: The Genitourinary Pathology Society distributed a survey to urology and urologic oncology-focused societies and hospital departments. Eight hundred and thirty four responses were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Eighty percent of survey participants use quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy for clinical decisions, less frequently with higher Grade Groups. Fifty percent interpret “tertiary” grade as a minor/<5% component. Seventy percent of respondents would prefer per core grading as well as a global/overall score per set of biopsies, but 70% would consider highest Gleason score in any single core as the grade for management. Seventy five percent utilize Grade Group terminology in patient discussions. For 45%, cribriform pattern would affect management, while for 70% the presence of intraductal carcinoma would preclude active surveillance. Conclusion: This survey of practice patterns in relationship to prostate cancer grading highlights similarities and differences between contemporary pathology reporting and its clinical application. As utilization of Gleason pattern 4 quantification, minor tertiary pattern, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and the incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging-based strategies evolve, these findings may serve as a basis for more nuanced communication and guide research efforts involving pathologists and clinicians. © 2020 Elsevier Inc. |
