Handling and reporting of transperineal template prostate biopsy in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP)

Solene-Florence Kammerer-Jacquet, Eva Compérat, Lars Egevad, Ondra Hes, Jon Oxley, Murali Varma, Glen Kristiansen, Daniel M. Berney

Transperineal template prostate biopsies (TTPB) are performed for assessments after unexpected negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies (TRUSB), correlation with imaging findings and during active surveillance. The impact of TTPBs on pathology has not been analysed. The European Network of Uropathology (ENUP) distributed a survey on TTPB, including how specimens were received, processed and analysed. Two hundred forty-four replies were received from 22 countries with TTPBs seen by 68.4% of the responders (n = 167). Biopsies were received in more than 12 pots in 35.2%. The number of cores embedded per cassette varied between 1 (39.5%) and 3 or more (39.5%). Three levels were cut in 48.3%, between 2 and 3 serial sections in 57.2% and unstained spare sections in 45.1%. No statistical difference was observed with TRUSB management. The number of positive cores was always reported and the majority gave extent per core (82.3%), per region (67.1%) and greatest involvement per core (69.4%). Total involvement in the whole series and continuous/discontinuous infiltrates were reported in 42.2 and 45.4%, respectively. The majority (79.4%) reported Gleason score in each site or core, and 59.6% gave an overall score. A minority (28.5%) provided a map or a diagram. For 19%, TTPB had adversely affected laboratory workload with only 27% managing to negotiate extra costs. Most laboratories process samples thoroughly and report TTPB similarly to TRUSB. Although TTPB have caused considerable extra work, it remains uncosted in most centres. Guidance is needed for workload impact and minimum standards of processing if TTPB work continues to increase.