Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Errors in prostate core biopsy diagnosis in an era of specialisation and double reporting
  1. Cornelia Margaret Szecsei,
  2. Jon D Oxley
  1. Cellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jon D Oxley, Cellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK; jon.oxley{at}nbt.nhs.uk

Abstract

Aim To examine the effects of specialist reporting on error rates in prostate core biopsy diagnosis.

Method Biopsies were reported by eight specialist uropathologists over 3 years. New cancer diagnoses were double-reported and all biopsies were reviewed for the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. Diagnostic alterations were recorded in supplementary reports and error rates were compared with a decade previously.

Results 2600 biopsies were reported. 64.1% contained adenocarcinoma, a 19.7% increase. The false-positive error rate had reduced from 0.4% to 0.06%. The false-negative error rate had increased from 1.5% to 1.8%, but represented fewer absolute errors due to increased cancer incidence.

Conclusions Specialisation and double-reporting have reduced false-positive errors. MDT review of negative cores continues to identify a very low number of false-negative errors. Our data represents a ‘gold standard’ for prostate biopsy diagnostic error rates. Increased use of MRI-targeted biopsies may alter error rates and their future clinical significance.

  • prostate
  • carcinoma
  • diagnosis
  • clinical audit
  • morphological and microscopic findings
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Runjan Chetty.

  • Contributors Both authors contributed to the design of the work, data acquisition, analysis, writing and final approval of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Editorial
    Murali Varma W Glenn McCluggage Varsha Shah Daniel M Berney