Patient and urologist driven second opinion of prostate needle biopsies

Theresa Y. Chan, Jonathan I. Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: We reviewed second opinion prostate needle biopsies that were patient and urologist driven to determine how often an expert opinion resulted in a different diagnosis. Materials and Methods: Of 3,155 prostate needle biopsy consultations received during a 6-month interval 684 were sent at the request of the patient or urologist. A significant change in outside diagnosis was one that could potentially result in a change in therapy or prognosis. Results: The second opinion was requested by patients (21.6%), urologist (63.9%) and patients plus urologists (14.5%). The distribution of the 684 outside diagnoses was benign in 6.1%, HGPIN in 7.6%, atypical (ATYP) in 29.8% and cancer in 56.5%. In 241 cases (35.2%) a change in diagnosis was rendered upon expert review. We agreed with the majority of outside cancer, benign and HGPIN diagnoses, in contrast to only 36.8% of outside ATYP cases (p <0.0001). Uncommonly did a cancer diagnosis become a benign one or vice versa. Of changes affecting outside cancer diagnoses 73.5% were due to changes in Gleason score. The diagnosis was more likely to be changed when the consultation was requested by the urologist rather than by the patient (41.4% vs 25%, p <0.0001). Conclusions: Cases diagnosed as ATYP have the highest likelihood of being changed upon expert review. Urologists should consider sending such cases for consultation to attempt to resolve the diagnosis as definitively benign or malignant before subjecting the patient to repeat biopsy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1390-1394
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume174
Issue number4 I
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2005

Keywords

  • Biopsy
  • Prostate
  • Prostatic neoplasms
  • Referral and consultation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Patient and urologist driven second opinion of prostate needle biopsies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this