Prostate cancer can be difficult to appreciate grossly and therefore partial sampling of the gland can lead to incorrect grading, staging, or margin status. However, submitting the entire prostate is more time consuming and costly. We investigated the use of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-targeted biopsy for the selective submission of prostatectomy specimens. We performed a retrospective review for patients with cancer on targeted prostate biopsy who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy. Prostatectomy specimens were submitted in their entirety and assessed for Grade Group, extraprostatic extension (EPE), margins, and number of blocks. For Targeted-Grossing (TG) assessment, apex margin, bladder neck margin, seminal vesicles, and vas deferens sections were included. For the remainder of the prostate, only sections from areas shown to be positive for cancer on targeted biopsy were included in the analysis. With total tissue submission, EPE was found in 39/81 (48.1%) cases and positive margins in 19/81 (23.5%) cases. The TG method required significantly fewer blocks: 15.8 ± 5.9 versus 44.9 ± 11.9 ( P < .0001). The TG method would have diagnosed the correct stage in 73/81 (90.1%) cases, Grade Group in 74/81 (91.4%) cases, and margin status in 79/81 (97.5%) cases. EPE was missed completely by the TG method in 7 cases ( P = .008), of which 5/7 (71.4%) had focal EPE. There was no significant difference in stage ( P = .24), Grade Group ( P = .95), or margin status ( P = .16) between the 2 methods. Grossing utilizing selective tissue submission from areas found to be positive for prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-targeted prostate biopsy remains inferior to complete submission of tissue for radical prostatectomy specimens.
The value of transperineal apical prostate biopsy in predicting urethral/apical margin status after radical prostatectomy