title: Use of individual containers for prostate biopsy samples: Do we gain diagnostic performance?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Prostate cores from transrectal biopsies are usually sent in separate vials for pathological processing. Although this is a common practice, there are controversial studies on its usefulness. We wanted to compare the rate of prostate cancer diagnosis between processing samples in 2 containers and processing them in individual containers to see if there are differences. Our secondary objective was to check the rate of diagnosis of various tumour subtypes in each of the 2 groups.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective observational study was conducted of 2,601 cases of prostate biopsies. Ten cores were extracted in each biopsy. We divided the sample into 2 groups: biopsies sent in 2 containers to the department of pathology (left and right lobes) or sent in 10 (one for each cylinder), according to the different criteria used in our centre in the past. We then classified the cases according to the absence of neoplasia, insignificant tumour (involvement of just 1 cylinder, <5%, Gleason score<7), Gleason 6 or Gleason≥7. A bivariate statistical analysis was performed using the chi-squared test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 1,777 participants were included in the 2-container group, and 824 were included in the 10-container group. We diagnosed a rate of 32.4% of cancers in the 2-container group and 40% in the 10-container group, a difference that was statistically significant (P<.001). The insignificant carcinomas were diagnosed more often in the 2-container group than in the 10-container group (6.4% vs. 4.3%, respectively; P=.03). Samples with a Gleason score of 6 were diagnosed more often in the 10-container group than in the 2-container group (11.9% vs. 8.1%, respectively; P=.002). The same occurred with the Gleason score≥7 (23.8% in the 10-container group vs. 17.9% in the 2-container group; P<.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We diagnosed more prostate cancers when sending biopsied cores in individual containers. Once the procedure was conducted, we also observed in our series a reduction in the diagnoses of insignificant carcinoma to the detriment of an increased diagnosis of not insignificant carcinomas.
authors.affiliation: Servicio de Urología. Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, España. Electronic address: jorpanav22@gmail.com.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Panach-Navarrete
authors.affiliation: Servicio de Urología. Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, España.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: García-Morata
authors.affiliation: Servicio de Urología. Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, España.
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Valls-González
authors.affiliation: Servicio de Urología. Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, España.
authors.forename: J M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Martínez-Jabaloyas
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001706:Biopsy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011467:Prostate / Q000473:pathology*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013048:Specimen Handling / Q000295:instrumentation*
keywords: Biopsia; Biopsy; Cáncer de próstata; Diagnosis; Diagnóstico; Gleason; Prostate cancer