Advances in Anatomic Pathology:
Baptist Hospital, Miami, FL
The author has no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
At present there are many guides to prostate biopsy interpretation and genitourinary pathology in general. Practicing pathologists are fortunate to have a wide range of options and be able to choose whichever text works best for them. For many pathologists, the current text is likely to be the one they choose.
As the authors point out, this text is derived from a course that the 2 authors presented at a national meeting over the course of several years. During that time the authors refined the course (and the subsequent book) to reflect the issues that their audience thought were most relevant. As a result, the current text has already been vetted and has received substantial feedback, which is reflected in the quality of the book. The emphasis of the text is on problems that may arise in examining prostate biopsies, and the approach of the authors is to distill their advice to its essence, and then present that advice in a series of concise tables and numerous high-quality images. The feel that this is a teaching book derived from an actual course is well maintained and adds to the functionality of the text. The number of images is well chosen to provide the full range of what one might actually encounter in a biopsy without being overwhelming. The topics covered include atypical small acinar proliferations, limited cancer diagnosis, grading, immunohistochemistry, histologic variants, benign mimics, treatment effects, tissue handling, and molecular biology of prostate cancer.
The authors’ advice is pragmatic and thoughtful. Most importantly, the advice is clearly useful. I could find only minor quibbles with what they say. For example, if the authors truly believe that the diagnosis of low-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is not reproducible and should not be made, why bother to illustrate it at all? And how can we be sure the illustrations actually are low-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia? Shouldn’t we simply let this diagnosis die a dignified death, rather than trot it out and belittle it once again? If one wants to contrast what is and is not high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, a diagnosis that most agree is important to make, one can do that by simply labeling the cases that are not high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia as such.
Nevertheless, these concerns are more stylistic than anything else. The authors have done a wonderful job of bringing their well-received course to the printed page. The advice in this text deserves to be brought to a broader audience than the authors could ever reach with their lectures alone. This text is likely to find a place on the shelves of many pathologists who interpret prostate needle biopsies.
Andrew Renshaw, MD
Baptist Hospital, Miami, FL
© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.