LGCmain
Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 1413
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 197-200
Current practice in handling and reporting needle biopsies: A hospital-based survey


Department of Pathology, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication20-Apr-2018
 

   Abstract 


Context: Core-needle biopsy (CNB) is a minimally invasive screening and diagnostic tool which provides intact tissue fragments for histopathological examination.
Aims: This study was conducted to review the current practices of handling and reporting CNBs performed for core-needle biopsies from four organ systems which are frequently encountered in our institution. These include breast, prostate, soft tissues, and lymph nodes. Settings and Design: This was a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: CNB reports of breast, prostate, soft tissue, and lymph nodes were accessed and categorized based on the site of biopsy, number, and average length of the cores. The CNB reports were categorized into diagnostic or nondiagnostic. In case of diagnosis of malignancy, reports were recorded as structured or nonstructured reports. Statistical Analysis Used: Fisher's exact test and Chi-square tests were applied to check the significance of the results obtained on comparing the number of cores and size of cores with the outcome of report. Results: Out of 16,300 surgical pathology specimens received, 400 were CNBs comprising breast (n = 211), prostate (n = 108), soft tissue (n = 50), and lymph node (n = 31). Majority of the CNBs had 2–5 cores and the size of the core was ≥0.5 cm, which accounted for most of the reports which were diagnostic. There was a lack of clinical and radiological detail in many of the cases. Out of the malignant cases diagnosed, structured reports were given in 30% of breast, 79.3% of prostate, 41.7% soft tissue, and 60% of lymph node needle biopsies. Conclusions: The audit helped to identify areas of improvement in CNB services.

Keywords: Breast, core needle biopsy, lymph node, prostate, soft tissue, survey

How to cite this article:
Garg P, Pathak P, Goyal R, Arora VK, Singh N. Current practice in handling and reporting needle biopsies: A hospital-based survey. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2018;61:197-200

How to cite this URL:
Garg P, Pathak P, Goyal R, Arora VK, Singh N. Current practice in handling and reporting needle biopsies: A hospital-based survey. Indian J Pathol Microbiol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 6];61:197-200. Available from: http://www.ijpmonline.org/text.asp?2018/61/2/197/230569





   Introduction Top


Core needle biopsy (CNB) is a minimally invasive, cost-effective screening, and diagnostic tool where a core of tissue is obtained for histopathological examination. The diagnostic yield of CNB depends on multiple factors such as operator skills, number and size of cores sampled, and extent of sampling.[1] Relevant clinical and radiological details, skill of the pathologist, and use of synoptic reporting (SR) also influence the diagnostic rate.[2],[3] Usefulness of CNB in early detection of breast and prostatic malignancies is well established.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] In palpable breast lesions, CNB can reliably differentiate between an in situ versus an invasive lesion and is a preferred technique for hormone receptor analysis by immunohistochemistry.[6],[13] Transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy method has been accepted as the “gold” standard technique for prostate biopsies.[11] The number and length of cores are determining factors for the accuracy of prostatic malignancy detection.[12] For soft-tissue lesions, evaluation of the preoperative biopsy helps to guide operative planning as well as consideration for neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy.[14],[15],[16],[17] In pathology of the lymph nodes, excisional biopsy is the preferred method; however, CNB is now advocated as the first-line investigation by some studies.[18],[19],[20],[21] In our current clinical setup, CNBs for surgical disorders from four organ systems – breast, prostate, soft tissue, and lymph nodes are commonly performed. This survey was conducted to review the current practices of handling and reporting CNBs performed for these sites.


   Materials and Methods Top


This was an audit of CNB done between October 2012 and April 2014. Clearance was obtained from the Ethical Committee. Core needle biopsies of breast, prostate, soft tissues, and lymph nodes were accessed, and the details regarding the site of biopsy, number, and average length of the cores were collected from the requisition forms. All the CNBs, irrespective of site, were recorded as either <0.5 cm or >0.5 cm in length, and the number of cores was documented as 1, 2–5, and >5 cores as measured on gross examination. The reports were categorized into diagnostic or nondiagnostic. In case of diagnosis of malignancy, reports were recorded as structured or nonstructured. The percentage of diagnostic and nondiagnostic reports and structured and nonstructured reports was calculated. The proportions of diagnostic and nondiagnostic reports in biopsies with relation to varying sizes and number of cores were calculated using Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test. Data are represented as numbers and percentages.


   Results Top


During the audit period, 16,300 surgical pathology specimens were received, of which 400 were needle biopsies comprising breast (n = 211, 53%), prostate (n = 108, 27%), soft tissue (n = 50, 12.5%), and lymph node (n = 31, 7.5%). Eighty percent (319/400) of the CNBs were from breast and prostate. Majority of the needle biopsy cores submitted for histopathological examination from the four sites had 2–5 cores [Table 1]. Furthermore, the size of the core was ≥0.5 cm in most of the submitted CNBs [Table 2]. Clinical details were not documented by the submitting clinician in the requisition forms in breast (n = 52/211, 24.6%), prostate (n = 23/108, 21.3%), soft tissue (n = 20/50, 40%), and lymph node (n = 11/31, 35.5%).
Table 1: Distribution of cases according to number of cores submitted and its correlation with outcome of the report

Click here to view
Table 2: Distribution of cases according to size of the cores submitted and its correlation with outcome of the report

Click here to view


Relevant radiological details were not documented in breast (n = 173/211, 82%), prostate (n = 85/108, 78.7%), soft tissue (n = 33/50, 66%), and lymph node (n = 27/31, 87.1%). After processing and microscopic examination of the tissue, diagnostic reports were given in 182/211 (86.2%) of breast, 88/108 (81.5%) of prostate, 34/50 (68%) of soft tissue, and 15/31 (48.4%) of lymph CNBs. Proportion of diagnostic reports in relation to number and size of cores are shown in [Table 1] and [Table 2], respectively. There was a positive correlation of the number and of the cores with the outcome of the report in breast with P = 0.001. Malignancy was diagnosed in 143/211 (67.8%) of breast, 29/108 (26.8%) of prostate, 24/50 (48%) of soft tissue, and 15/31 (48.4%) of lymph node CNBs. Out of the malignant cases diagnosed, structured reports were given in 30% of breast, 79.3% of prostate, 41.7% of soft tissue, and 60% of lymph node needle biopsies.


   Discussion Top


CNB serves as an interface between an invasive excisional biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology, by providing intact tissue fragments while being minimally invasive.[1] As a diagnostic and screening tool, role of CNB in breast and prostate is well established.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] This explains the larger proportion of needle biopsies from these organs in our study. In case of soft-tissue tumors, CNB is performed for deep-seated and large lesions, while an excisional biopsy is the preferred approach for superficial and small-sized lesions;[14] hence, the number of CNBs do not account for the total number of soft-tissue lesions which come to our laboratory. Role of CNB in lymph node pathology is controversial as the World Health Organization system for lymphoma classification relies on histologic findings from excisional biopsies.[22]

Breast CNBs have a high reported adequacy rate, and the number and size of the cores have shown to improve their diagnostic rates.[5],[6] In our study, increased number of submitted cores from breast tissue and larger core size was associated with the larger proportion of diagnostic cases while, majority of the cases with a non-diagnostic report had only one core submitted and/or had core length of <0.5 cm, emphasizing the importance of adequate number and length of cores in CNBs.

The importance of number and length of CNBs is most well studied in prostate cancer.[9],[10],[11],[12] A 10–12 core extended sampling protocol increases cancer detection, while the number of cores in proportion with the volume of prostate has also shown to have similar efficacy.[13],[23],[24] The proportion of needle biopsies with ≥6 cores is less in our study (16%) reiterating that a uniform sampling protocol has to be followed for prostatic CNBs. Another important morphometric parameter of prostate is needle core length, which is an alternative way to inspect more tissue.[25] As the length of prostatic cores varied significantly in our study and were largely <10 mm long, they were divided into two groups with 5 mm as the division. The proportion of diagnostic reports was higher with prostatic biopsy length of >0.5 mm (85.7%), favoring the view that needle core length is an important parameter influencing the rate of cancer detection.

In soft-tissue lesions, accuracy of CNBs varies from 68% to 100%[14],[15],[16],[17] and can differentiate soft-tissue sarcomas from benign soft-tissue tumors with high accuracy.[26] However, accuracy of diagnosis depends on sampling of tumor and thus number and size of cores are important.[14] In our study, no significant difference was seen in diagnostic rate with respect to number and size of cores which might be misleading owing to the small sample.

In lymph node pathology, excisional biopsy has been the standard method of tissue sampling, providing ample tissue for assessment, but it is less preferred due to invasive nature of the procedure and greater patient morbidity.[22] With careful use of tissue coupled with advances in immunohistochemical and molecular investigative techniques, core biopsy has been advocated as possible alternative to traditional fine-needle aspiration and excisional biopsy.[18],[19],[20],[21] In our study, only 48% of lymph node CNBs were diagnostic, which is much lower than previously reported.[19],[27] The sample size of lymph node CNBs in our study may be a limiting factor; however, it does appear to be an area for directing our attention for improvement.

Clinical data and radiological information play a very important role in the interpretation of a needle biopsy specimen.[3] Triple diagnosis of breast lesions is based on clinical presentation, radiologic examination, and type of surgery performed.[4] Similarly, in prostatic CNBs, information regarding prostate-specific antigen, the clinical context, and the type of specimen should be provided in the request form. This along with information about prior biopsies or resections, or prior treatment, helps in the interpretation of the microscopic findings within the appropriate clinical context.[9],[10],[11],[12],[24],[28] In the present study, majority of CNBs had no relevant details mentioned in the requisition form. This tends to increase the turn-around time of reporting as additional time is required for getting the clinical history. This is also important in lesions of soft tissue where site and depth of the lesion are the two most important factors which are essential for making a diagnosis.[14] In lymph node enlargements, site, presence of organomegaly, and relevant hematological are important factors in making a diagnosis.[18],[19],[20] Lack of communication between the clinicians and a pathologist still persists in our current system and needs to be addressed.

The communication from the part of a pathologist is also important, and thus the use of SR is being increasingly advocated since narrative reporting can cause misinterpretation due to lack of information and structure.[3],[4],[24],[28],[29],[30],[31] In our study, highest use of a structured report was seen with prostatic malignancies. While reporting protocols are also available for breast, soft-tissue tumors, and lymphoma, these are not frequently utilized in our setup. To increase the overall completeness of pathology reports, these issues have to be addressed.


   Conclusions Top


The current practices of obtaining and reporting of CNBs in our institute are not in accordance with the prescribed international guidelines. If appropriate measures are taken, there may be an improvement in the outcome of core needle biopsies, especially in those obtained from soft tissues and lymph nodes. Use of structured reports may improve the clarity of communication between the pathologists and clinicians.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
VanderLaan PA. Fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy: An update on 2 common minimally invasive tissue sampling modalities. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:862-70.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Sluijter CE, van Lonkhuijzen LR, van Slooten HJ, Nagtegaal ID, Overbeek LI. The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: A systematic review. Virchows Arch 2016;468:639-49.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Nakhleh RE. Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011;135:1394-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bilous M. Breast core needle biopsy: Issues and controversies. Mod Pathol 2010;23 Suppl 2:S36-45.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Brancato B, Crocetti E, Bianchi S, Catarzi S, Risso GG, Bulgaresi P, et al. Accuracy of needle biopsy of breast lesions visible on ultrasound: Audit of fine needle versus core needle biopsy in 3233 consecutive samplings with ascertained outcomes. Breast 2012;21:449-54.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Focke CM, Decker T, van Diest PJ. The reliability of histological grade in breast cancer core needle biopsies depends on biopsy size: A comparative study with subsequent surgical excisions. Histopathology 2016;69:1047-54.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Radhakrishna S, Gayathri A, Chegu D. Needle core biopsy for breast lesions: An audit of 467 needle core biopsies. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2013;34:252-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
8.
Willems SM, van Deurzen CH, van Diest PJ. Diagnosis of breast lesions: Fine-needle aspiration cytology or core needle biopsy? A review. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:287-92.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Fraggetta F, Pepe P, Improta G, Aragona F, Colecchia M. Prostate needle biopsy: What we do and what should be improved. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol 2013;35:130-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl CG, Neetens I, Martikainen P, et al. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol 2003;56:336-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Muezzinoglu B, Yorukoglu K. Current practice in handling and reporting prostate needle biopsies: Results of a Turkish survey. Pathol Res Pract 2015;211:374-80.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Shah RB, Zhou M. Recent advances in prostate cancer pathology: Gleason grading and beyond. Pathol Int 2016;66:260-72.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:e48-72.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Tuttle R, Kane JM 3rd. Biopsy techniques for soft tissue and bowel sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 2015;111:504-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Layfield LJ, Schmidt RL, Sangle N, Crim JR. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of biopsy in musculoskeletal lesions: A comparison of fine-needle aspiration, core, and open biopsy techniques. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:476-86.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Seng C, Png W, Tan MH. Accuracy of core needle biopsy for musculoskeletal tumours. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2013;21:92-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Peer S, Freuis T, Loizides A, Gruber H. Ultrasound guided core needle biopsy of soft tissue tumors; a fool proof technique? Med Ultrason 2011;13:187-94.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Allin D, David S, Jacob A, Mir N, Giles A, Gibbins N. Use of core biopsy indiagnosing cervical lymphadenopathy: A viable alternative to surgical excisional biopsy of lymph nodes? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016;5:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Lachar WA, Shahab I, Saad AJ. Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of core needle biopsy in the evaluation of suspected lymphoma: A study of 101 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:1033-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Ryu YJ, Cha W, Jeong WJ, Choi SI, Ahn SH. Diagnostic role of core needle biopsy in cervical lymphadenopathy. Head Neck 2015;37:229-33.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Frederiksen JK, Sharma M, Casulo C, Burack WR. Systematic review of the effectiveness of fine-needle aspiration and/or core needle biopsy for subclassifying lymphoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:245-51.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, Thiele J, Borowitz MJ, Le Beau MM, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 2016;127:2391-405.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: Sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 2013;189:2039-46.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Oxley J, Varma M. The Royal College of Pathologists' Standards and Datasets for Reporting Cancers: Dataset for Histolopathology Reports for Prostatic Carcinoma; June, 2016. Available from: https://www.rcpath.org/asset/8CC88604-2C8D-4DF4-A99542DF41C102AF/. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 09].  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Öbek C, Doǧanca T, Erdal S, Erdoǧan S, Durak H. Core length in prostate biopsy: Size matters. J Urol 2012;187:2051-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Strauss DC, Qureshi YA, Hayes AJ, Thway K, Fisher C, Thomas JM, et al. The role of core needle biopsy in the diagnosis of suspected soft tissue tumours. J Surg Oncol 2010;102:523-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Oh KH, Woo JS, Cho JG, Baek SK, Jung KY, Kwon SY, et al. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided core needle gun biopsy in diagnosing cervical lymphadenopathy. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2016;133:401-4.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ellis IO, Al-Sam S, Anderson N, Carder P, Deb R, Girling A, et al. The Royal College of Pathologists' Standards and Datasets for Reporting Cancers: Dataset for Histological Reporting of Breast Cancer; June, 2016. Available from: https://www.rcpath.org/asset/7763BE1C-D330-40E8-95D08F955752792A/. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 09].  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein J. College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the Examination of Specimens from Patients with Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland; June, 2012. Available from: http://www.cap.org/ShowProperty?nodePath=/UCMCon/Contribution%20Folders/WebContent/pdf/prostate-12protocol-3200.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 09].  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Fisher C. The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and Datasets for Reporting Cancers Dataset for Histopathology Reporting of Soft Tissue Sarcomas; January, 2017. Available from: https://www.rcpath.org/asset/C876E8E7-093B-426D-BE0200249568B3FC/. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 09].  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Dojcinov S, Wilkins B, Calaminic M. The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards for Specialist Laboratory Integration and Dataset for the Histopathological Reporting of Lymphomas; October, 2015. Available from: https://www.rcpath.org/asset/DE0B5B4A-7F77-4FE2-AB56FD618EE69098.8B6357D7-945D-4B00-B677F1E62BEFC4FC/. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 09].  Back to cited text no. 31
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Priya Pathak
33-A, Una Enclave, Mayur Vihar Phase 1, New Delhi - 110 091
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_93_17

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2011    
    Printed29    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded209    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal