Use of Immunohistochemistry in Routine Workup of Prostate Needle Biopsies: A Tertiary Academic Institution Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Diagnostic use of immunohistochemistry has been extensively studied in prostate needle biopsy, but its use in routine practice and the quality assurance and associated cost have not been previously addressed. OBJECTIVE: To examine the routine use of immunohistochemistry in prostate biopsies in a tertiary academic institution. DESIGN: We reviewed reports of 748 consecutive prostate biopsies and we evaluated the turnaround times, the final diagnosis on individual specimens, the intradepartmental consultation rates, and the associated costs. RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry evaluation was required for 39.4% of biopsies and 12% of blocks (average 1.8 blocks/case). The biopsies with immunohistochemistry were signed out 1.7 workdays later (8.6 versus 6.9 days). The diagnostic breakdown for individual blocks evaluated by immunohistochemistry was Cancer 47.7%; Atypical, Suspicious 10.8%; Small Atypical Glands Adjacent to High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia 6.9%; High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia 12.4%; and Benign 22.2%. Diagnoses of Cancer or Atypical, Suspicious (Atypical, Suspicious + Small Atypical Glands Adjacent to High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia) were rendered in 65.4% of individual blocks assessed by immunohistochemistry. Immunohistochemistry aided in establishing limited cancer (≤10% of core) in 69.3% of cases and in 74% of single-core-positive biopsies. Departmental consultation was performed in 18.3% of biopsies and immunohistochemistry was used in 68% of these cases. Both immunohistochemistry and consultation were performed in 55.8% of Atypical, Suspicious cases. The average immunohistochemistry cost per biopsy was $22.34 and the estimated annual cost for prostate biopsy immunohistochemistry in our laboratory was $33 420.64. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemistry is frequently used in our prostate biopsy practice to establish or confirm a limited Cancer diagnosis, to better resolve diagnostic ambiguity, or for quality assurance. The data provided herein can be used for comparisons with other prostate biopsy practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".