Advertisement

Immunohistochemistry in Prostate Biopsy Evaluation

  • Rajal B. ShahEmail author
  • Ming Zhou
Chapter

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry is widely used in the work-up of difficult prostate biopsies. It is used principally in two clinical settings: to distinguish prostate cancer from benign lesions that mimic cancer, and to distinguish poorly differentiated prostate cancer from other malignant tumors that can occasionally involve the prostate, including urothelial carcinoma and colonic adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry, as an adjunct to histological examination, has had significant impact on the prostate biopsy evaluation. In the case of limited cancer or histological variants with deceptively bland morphology, immunohistochemistry is an indispensible part of the work-up. Use of immunohistochemistry has also significantly reduced the incidence of prostate biopsies with atypical diagnosis to establish a definitive diagnosis. Many immunohistochemical biomarkers have been investigated for prognostic purposes and risk stratification; however, none has been sufficiently validated for routine clinical use.

Keywords

Immunohistochemistry Basal cell markers High molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) p63 p40 α-Methylacyl-CoA-racemase (AMACR P504S) ERG protein Cytokeratins Prostate-specific markers Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) Prostate-specific acid phosphatase (PSAP) Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) Prostein (P501S) NKX3.1 TTF-1 CDX-2 PTEN Antibody cocktails 

References

  1. 1.
    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Humphrey P, Montironi R. Members of the ISUP immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group. Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the prostate: report from the international society of urologic pathology consensus conference. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;2014(38):e6–e19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Varma M, Jasani B. Diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry in morphologically difficult prostate cancer: review of current literature. Histopathology. 2005;47:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kunju LP, Mehra R, Snyder M, Shah RB. Prostate-specific antigen, high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (clone 34betaE12), and/or p63: an optimal immunohistochemical panel to distinguish poorly differentiated prostate adenocarcinoma from urothelial carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:675–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahane H, Sharp JW, Shuman GB, Dasilva G, Epstein JI. Utilization of high molecular weight cytokeratin on prostate needle biopsies in an independent laboratory. Urology. 1995;45:981–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wojno KJ, Epstein JI. The utility of basal cell-specific anti-cytokeratin antibody (34 beta E12) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. A review of 228 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995;19:251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou M, Aydin H, Kanane H, Epstein JI. How often does alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase contribute to resolving an atypical diagnosis on prostate needle biopsy beyond that provided by basal cell markers? Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:239–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah RB, Kunju LP, Shen R, LeBlanc M, Zhou M, Rubin MA. Usefulness of basal cell cocktail (34betaE12 + p63) in the diagnosis of atypical prostate glandular proliferations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122:517–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou M, Shah R, Shen R, Rubin MA. Basal cell cocktail (34betaE12 + p63) improves the detection of prostate basal cells. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shah RB, Zhou M, LeBlanc M, Snyder M, Rubin MA. Comparison of the basal cell-specific markers, 34betaE12 and p63, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varma M, Linden MD, Amin MB. Effect of formalin fixation and epitope retrieval techniques on antibody 34betaE12 immunostaining of prostatic tissues. Mod Pathol. 1999;12:472–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Osunkoya AO, Hansel DE, Sun X, Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Aberrant diffuse expression of p63 in adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy: report of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:461–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tan HL, Haffner MC, Esopi DM, Vaghasia AM, Giannico GA, Ross HM, et al. Prostate adenocarcinomas aberrantly expressing p63 are molecularly distinct from usual-type prostatic adenocarcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(3):446–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhou M, Jiang Z, Epstein JI. Expression and diagnostic utility of alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase (P504S) in foamy gland and pseudohyperplastic prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:772–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kunju LP, Chinnaiyan AM, Shah RB. Comparison of monoclonal antibody (P504S) and polyclonal antibody to alpha methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) in the work-up of prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2005;47:587–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang Z, Wu CL, Woda BA, Dresser K, Xu J, Fanger GR, et al. P504S/alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase: a useful marker for diagnosis of small foci of prostatic carcinoma on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1169–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magi-Galluzzi C, Luo J, Isaacs WB, Hicks JL, de Marzo AM, Epstein JI. Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase: a variably sensitive immunohistochemical marker for the diagnosis of small prostate cancer foci on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kunju LP, Rubin MA, Chinnaiyan AM, Shah RB. Diagnostic usefulness of monoclonal antibody P504S in the work-up of atypical prostatic glandular proliferations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:737–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang XJ, Laven B, Tretiakova M, Blute RD Jr, Woda BA, Steinberg GD, et al. Detection of alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase in postradiation prostatic adenocarcinoma. Urology. 2003;62:282–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tang X, Serizawa A, Tokunaga M, Yasuda M, Matsushita K, Terachi T, et al. Variation of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase expression in prostate adenocarcinoma cases receiving hormonal therapy. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:1186–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou M, Chinnaiyan AM, Kleer CG, Lucas PC, Rubin MA. Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA racemase: a novel tumor marker over-expressed in several human cancers and their precursor lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:926–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubin MA, Zhou M, Dhanasekaran SM, Varambally S, Barrette TR, Sanda MG, et al. alpha-Methylacyl coenzyme A racemase as a tissue biomarker for prostate cancer. JAMA. 2002;287:1662–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skinnider BF, Oliva E, Young RH, Amin MB. Expression of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S) in nephrogenic adenoma: a significant immunohistochemical pitfall compounding the differential diagnosis with prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:701–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu CL, Yang XJ, Tretiakova M, Patton KT, Halpern EF, Woda BA, et al. Analysis of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S) expression in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol. 2004;35:1008–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang XJ, Wu CL, Woda BA, Dresser K, Tretiakova M, Fanger GR, et al. Expression of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S) in atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:921–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clark JP, Cooper CS. ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shah RB, Chinnaiyan AM. The discovery of common recurrent transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2)-erythroblastosis virus E26 transforming sequence (ETS) gene fusions in prostate cancer: significance and clinical implications. Adv Anat Pathol. 2009;16:145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Furusato B, Tan SH, Young D, Dobi A, Sun C, Mohamed AA, et al. ERG oncoprotein expression in prostate cancer: clonal progression of ERG-positive tumor cells and potential for ERG-based stratification. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13:228–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park K, Tomlins SA, Mudaliar KM, Chiu YL, Esgueva R, Mehra R, et al. Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangement-positive prostate cancer. Neoplasia. 2010;12:590–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shah RB, Tadros Y, Brummell B, Zhou M. The diagnostic use of ERG in resolving an “atypical glands suspicious for cancer” diagnosis in prostate biopsies beyond that provided by basal cell and α-methylacyl-CoA-racemase markers. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(5):786–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perner S, Mosquera JM, Demichelis F, Hofer MD, Paris PL, Simko J, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer: an early molecular event associated with invasion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:882–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanderson SO, Sebo TJ, Murphy LM, Neumann R, Slezak J, Cheville JC. An analysis of the p63/alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunohistochemical cocktail stain in prostate needle biopsy specimens and tissue microarrays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121:220–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Han B, Suleman K, Wang L, Siddiqui J, Sercia L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. ETS gene aberrations in atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: implications for the distinction between intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(4):478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lotan TL, Gumuskaya B, Rahimi H, Hicks JL, Iwata T, Robinson BD, et al. Cytoplasmic PTEN protein loss distinguishes intraductal carcinoma of the prostate from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(4):587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert J Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Tufts Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations