Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate Gland Pathology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Clinical Genitourinary Pathology

  • 1054 Accesses

Abstract

A pathologic report for prostate biopsy specimens (core or transurethral prostate resection) should include the following information: histologic type of cancer; Gleason primary and secondary pattern and total score; total number of cores; number of involved cores; percentage of prostatic tissue involved by tumor (especially for needle biopsies, either in each core or total linear mm of carcinoma/total linear mm of each core tissue); presence of perineural, angiolymphatic, and periprostatic fat invasion and seminal vesicle invasion; presence of high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) (if no carcinoma is found, the number of cores involved and pattern of high-grade PIN should be reported); and therapy-related changes.

A pathologic report for prostatectomy specimens should include the following information: structures included in specimen [prostate (complete or not), seminal vesicles, vas deferens, bladder neck]; weight; size in three dimensions; histologic type and location of tumor (if any); Gleason pattern(s) and score; percentage of prostate involved by tumor (need not give exact tumor volume but an indication of minute vs. voluminous); presence of perineural invasion; presence of angiolymphatic invasion; presence of extraprostatic tissue invasion; presence of high-grade PIN; margin status; lymph nodes (number of involved lymph nodes, number of sampled lymph nodes; extranodal tumor extension is not related to survival) and diameter of largest metastasis; acute or chronic inflammation (which often doesn’t correlate with clinical prostatitis); and presence of granulomatous prostatitis (which may elevate PSA and produce suspicious feeling gland).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abdel-Khalek M, El-Baz M, Ibrahiem E-H (2004) Predictors of prostate cancer on extended biopsy in patients with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a multivariate analysis model. BJU Int 94:528–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amin MB (ed) (2010) Diagnostic pathology. Genitourinary. AMIRSYS, Salt Lake City

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D et al (2004) Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 64(3):551–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bostwick DG, Chen L (eds) (2014) Urologic surgical pathology. MOSBY Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinker DA, Potter SR, Epstein JI (1999) Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on needle biopsy: correlation with clinical and radical prostatectomy findings and progression. Am J Surg Pathol 23:1471–1479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE et al (1999) Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng./ml. or less. J Urol 161:835–839

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M, Rifkin M, Vo T et al (1996) Does color Doppler increase the ability to identify prostate cancer? In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. Birmingham, Alabama, p 65

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen WN, Steinberg G, Walsh PC et al (1991) Prostatic duct adenocarcinoma: findings at radical prostatectomy. Cancer 67:2118–2124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooperberg M, Prest J, Shinohara K, Caroll P (2013) Neoplasms of the prostate gland. In: McAninch J, Lue T (eds) Smith and Tanagho’s general urology, 18th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 350–379

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono JS, Logothetis CJ, Molina A et al (2011) Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(21):1995–2005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Eastham JA, Riedel E, Scardino PT et al (2003) Variation of serum prostate-specific antigen levels: an evaluation of year-to-year fluctuations. JAMA 289:2695–2700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein J (2016) Pathology of prostatic neoplasia. In: Wein R, Kavoussi L, Partin A, Peters C (eds) Campbell-Walsh urology, 11th edn. Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 2593–2600

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L et al (2005) Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 216:34–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175:820–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI, Netto GJ (2015) Biopsy interpretation of the prostate, 5th edn. Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI, Woodruff JM (1986) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with endometrioid features: a light microscopic and immunohistochemical study of ten cases. Cancer 57:111–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fine SW, Humphrey PA (2013) Modern prostate needle biopsy interpretation. Short course # 22, syllabus. United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, Aronson WJ (2002) Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score. J Urol 167:516–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godoy G, Huang GJ, Patel T et al (2011) Long-term follow-up of men with isolated high-grade prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia followed by serial delayed interval biopsy. Urology 77:669–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordetsky J, Epstein J (2016) Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol 11:25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S et al (2008) The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol 54:581–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamper U, Sheth S, Walsh P, Epstein J (1990) Βright echogenic foci in early prostatic carcinoma: sonographic and pathologic correlation. Radiology 176:339–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanks GE (1988) External-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: patterns of care studies in the United States. NCI Monogr 7:75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemminki K (2012) Familial risk and familial survival in prostate cancer. World J Urol 30:143–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu CY, Joniau S, Oyen R et al (2007) Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Eur Urol 51(1):121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jansson KF, Akre O, Garmo H et al (2012) Concordance of tumor differentiation among brothers with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 62:656–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joniau S, Spahn M, Briganti A et al (2015) Pretreatment tables predicting pathologic stage of locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67(2):319–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly IM, Lees WR, Rickards D (1993) Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US. Radiology 189:153–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leitzmann MF, Rohrmann S (2012) Risk factors for the onset of prostatic cancer: age, location, and behavioral correlates. Clin Epidemiol 4:1–11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 24(1):26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A et al (2007) The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 38(8):1207–1211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merrimen JL, Jones G, Srigley JR (2010) Is high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia still a risk factor for adenocarcinoma in the era of extended biopsy sampling? Pathology 42:325–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D et al (2009) Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 182:485–490, discussion 490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montironi R, Santoni M, Mazzucchelli R et al (2016) Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 16(4):433–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E et al (2017) Prostate cancer. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines. European Association of Urology. Available via https://uroweb.org/guideline/renal-cell-carcinoma. Accessed 17 Apr 2017

  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) (2017) Prostate Cancer, Version 2. 2016 & 2.2017. Available via https://www.nccn.org/professionals/prostate. Accessed 20 April 2017

  • NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in Oncology-Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2018 (2017) Available viahttps://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed February 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson WG, De Marzo AM, Isaacs WB (2003) Prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349(4):366–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M et al (2007) Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology 70:1117–1120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker C, Gillessen S, Heidenreich A et al (2015) Cancer of the prostate: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(suppl 5):v69–v77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Partin AW, Carter HB, Chan DW et al (1990) Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol 143(4):747–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM et al (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58(6):843–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickup M, Van der Kwast TH (2007) My approach to intraductal lesions of the prostate gland. J Clin Pathol 60:856–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ploussard G, Rotondo S, Salomon L (2010) The prognostic significance of bladder neck invasion in prostate cancer: is microscopic involvement truly a T4 disease? BJU Int 105(6):776–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin MD (1998) Prostate cancer: the diagnostic dilemma and the place of imaging in detection and staging. World J Urol 16(1):76–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin M, McGlynn E, Choi H (1989) Εchogenicity of prostate cancer correlated with histologic grade and stromal fibrosis: Εndorectal US studies. Radiology 170:549–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin M, Sudakoff G, Alexander A (1993) Color Doppler imaging of prostate : Τechniques, results and potential applications. Radiology 186:509–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts JA, Zhou M, Park YW et al (2013) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comprehensive and concise review. Korean J Pathol 47(4):307–315

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Samaratunga H, Duffy D, Yaxley J et al (2010) Any proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens predicts extraprostatic extension. Hum Pathol 41:281–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sammon JD, Trinh QD, Sukumar S et al (2013) Risk factors for biochemical recurrence following radical perineal prostatectomy in a large contemporary series: a detailed assessment of margin extent and location. Urol Oncol 31(8):1470–1476

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scardino RT (1988) Τhe appearance of stage A prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathologic examination. In: Τhird international symposium on transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, Chicago, pp 64–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI (2001) Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 32(5):494–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seipel AH, Wiklund F, Wiklund NP et al (2013) Histopathological features of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate in 1,051 radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 462:429–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Semjonow A, Brandt B, Oberpenning F et al (1996) Discordance of assay methods creates pitfalls for the interpretation of prostate specific antigen values. Prostate Suppl 7:3–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67(1):7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR et al (1987) Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 317:909–916

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stamey TA, Yemoto CM, McNeal J et al (2000) Prostate cancer is highly predictable: a prognostic equation based on all morphological variables in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 163(4):1155–1160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar et al (2013) Prostate and breast: brother and sister organs 3D book series, vol II. Tabar Foundation, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan DS, Mok TS, Rebbeck TR (2016) Cancer genomics: diversity and disparity across ethnicity and geography. J Clin Oncol 34:91–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tavora F, Epstein JI (2008) High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia-like ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 32:1060–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML et al (2005) Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 95(6):751–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ Jr et al (2007) Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 178(2):493–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M, Li J, Cheng L et al (2015) Diagnosis of “poorly formed glands” Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol 39(10):1331–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Athens, Greece

    Maria Gkotzamanidou, Andreas C. Lazaris, Vasileios Spapis, Nikolaos Spetsieris & Popi Tsagaraki

Authors
  1. Maria Gkotzamanidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas C. Lazaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vasileios Spapis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikolaos Spetsieris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Popi Tsagaraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. First Department of Pathology, National and Kapodistrian University First Department of Pathology, Athens, Greece

    Andreas C. Lazaris

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gkotzamanidou, M., Lazaris, A.C., Spapis, V., Spetsieris, N., Tsagaraki, P. (2018). Prostate Gland Pathology. In: Lazaris, A. (eds) Clinical Genitourinary Pathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72194-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72194-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72193-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72194-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation