Advertisement

Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate (IDC-P) and Atypical Intraductal Proliferation (AIP)

  • Rajal B. ShahEmail author
  • Ming Zhou
Chapter

Abstract

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is an intraglandular/ductal neoplastic proliferation of prostatic glandular epithelial cells that is characterized by marked expansion of glandular architecture and nuclear atypia that often exceeds than seen in invasive carcinoma. It has been long recognized that some “invasive” prostatic carcinomas had residual basal cells on H&E staining or basal cell immunostains. McNeal and Yemoto first reported that it represented an aggressive form of acinar carcinoma. The concept of IDC-P has evolved significantly since then to culminate in recognizing it as a distinct entity in the 2016 WHO blue book.

Two morphological hallmarks of IDC-P are expansile growth of atypical cells that forms large dense cribriform and/or solid architecture and intraductal/acinar location of the atypical cells with preservation of basal cells. IDC-P is a clinically aggressive form of prostate cancer that is typically associated with a high Gleason score, large tumor volume, extraprostatic extension, positive lymph node status, and increased recurrence risk. A diagnosis of IDC-P in biopsy mandates immediate repeat biopsy or definitive therapy even in the absence of documented invasive PCa. Therefore, an accurate recognition of IDC-P and its distinction from HGPIN are crucial to patient management. A lesion that histologically appears more ominous than HGPIN but do not fulfill the criteria of classical IDC-P is termed as atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP). AIP is typically characterized by loose cribriform proliferations lacking intraluminal necrosis and nuclear atypia that is characteristic of IDC-P. Such lesions in the past have also been referred to as atypical cribriform lesion (ACL) or atypical intraductal cribriform proliferation. Emerging molecular studies have shown distinct differences between IDC-P and HGPIN but similarity between IDC-P and AIP. This chapter summarizes the current concepts on morphologic and molecular characteristics of IDC-P, its differential diagnoses, and an approach to work-up of atypical intraductal proliferative lesions in prostate needle biopsies.

Keywords

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate IDC-P Atypical cribriform lesion ACL Atypical intraductal proliferation AIP High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia HGPIN TMPRSS: ERG gene fusions ERG PTEN Urothelial cell carcinoma Ductal adenocarcinoma Cribriform acinar adenocarcinoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Shah RB, Zhou M. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: clinical significance, differential diagnosis and current concept of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Adv Anat Pathol. 2012;19:270–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moch H, Humphrey P, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. WHO classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016. p. 164–5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hickman RA, Yu H, Li J, Kong M, Shah RB, Zhou M, et al. Atypical intraductal cribriform proliferations of the prostate exhibit similar molecular and clinicopathologic characteristics as intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:550–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah RB, Yoon J, Liu G, Tian W. Atypical intraductal proliferation and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on core needle biopsy: a comparative clinicopathological and molecular study with a proposal to expand the morphological spectrum of intraductal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2017;71:693–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H, Rubin MA. A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1103–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:1528–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haffner MC, Weier C, Xu MM, Vaghasia A, Gürel B, Gümüşkaya B, et al. Molecular evidence that invasive adenocarcinoma can mimic Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia (PIN) and intraductal carcinoma through retrograde glandular colonization. J Pathol. 2016;238:31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;34:478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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;26:587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montironi R, Scarpelli M, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Zhou M, Montorsi F. Do not misinterpret intraductal carcinoma of the prostate as high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia! Eur Urol. 2012;62:518–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morais CL, Guedes LB, Hicks J, Baras AS, De Marzo AM, Lotan TL. ERG and PTEN status of isolated high-grade PIN occurring in cystoprostatectomy specimens without invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2016;55:117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morais CL, Han JS, Gordetsky J, Nagar MS, Anderson AE, Lee S, et al. Utility of PTEN and ERG immunostaining for distinguishing high-grade PIN from intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson B, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:418–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2010;184:1328–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah RB, Magi-Galluzzi C, Han B, Zhou M. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: relationship to prostatic carcinoma and implication for diagnosis in prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:470–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah RB, Zhou M. Recent advances in prostate cancer pathology: Gleason grading and beyond. Pathol Int. 2016;66:260–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wobker SE, Epstein JI. Differential diagnosis of intraductal lesions of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:e67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou M. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, PIN-like carcinoma, ductal carcinoma, and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S71–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shah RB, Nguyen JK, Przybycin CG, Reynolds JP, Cox R, Myles J, et al. Atypical Intraductal Proliferation Detected in Prostae Needle Biopsy is a Marker of Unsampled Intraductal Carcinoma and Other Adverse Pathological Features. A Prospective Clinicopathological Study of 62 Cases with Emphasis on Pathologic Outcomes. Histopathology. 2019; (Epub ahead of print)Google 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