Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2026
Enhancing Prostate Tumor Biobanking Reliability with Improved Sampling Technique and Histological Characterization
Published on: November 17, 2023
[Development of a pathological quality score of prostate biopsies]
1Cabinet d'urologie des Alpes du Sud, polyclinique des Alpes du Sud, 3-5, rue Antonin-Coronat, 05000 Gap, France. fabrice.mondet@wanadoo.fr
Objectives:
Develop a score allowing the pathologist to objectively report on the overall quality of extended standardized prostatic biopsy (EPB).
Methods:
A prospective study was carried out on 339 consecutive protocols of 10 core EPB (PSA<10 ng/ml). Reports are standardized and computerized. The conclusion of the reports includes an estimate of the overall quality of the EPB based on three items to classify the protocols in three groups: protocol of "good" quality (group 1), "medium" quality (group 2) and "poor" quality (group 3). The score (IGap) is automatically computed from three objective criteria also shown on the conclusion of the report: the average length of the 10 biopsies (LM), the number of biopsies on which capsular elements can be identified (BCI) and the average number of fragment per biopsy (Fm). The IGap index rank from 0 to 1. The average IGap of the three groups is computed using the t-test.
Results:
The average IGaps of the groups 1, 2 and 3 are respectively of 0,65 (0,37-0,89 ; n=250), 0,52 (0,36-0,71 ; n=69) and 0,43 (0,22-0,6 ; n=20), (p<0,001).
Conclusion:
IGap is a pertinent score reporting objectively of the overall quality of EPB. An IGap close to one indicates a good quality of EPB. An IGap close to zero indicate a poor quality of EPB.
