Prostate Carcinoma

  • Declan O’RourkeEmail author


Prostate Carcinoma: this chapter outlines the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, investigations, treatments and prognosis of cancer at this anatomical site. These features are correlated with the core data that are required to make corresponding histopathology reports of a consistently high quality, available in an appropriate timeframe, and clinically relevant to patient management and prognosis. Summary details of the common cancers given at this site include: gross description, histological types, tumour grade/differentiation, extent of local tumour spread, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node involvement, and the status of excision margins. Current WHO Classifications of Malignant Tumours and TNM8 are referenced. Notes are provided on other associated pathology, contemporary use of immunohistochemistry, updates on the role of evolving molecular tests, and the use of these ancillary techniques as biomarkers in diagnosis, and prediction of prognosis and treatment response. A summary is given of the more common non-carcinoma malignancies that are encountered at this site in diagnostic practice.


Prostatic adenocarcinoma TNM8 Gleason grade groups Immunohistochemistry Extraprostatic extension 


  1. Amin MB, Eptsein JI, Ulbright TM, et al. Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in urologic pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1017–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett VS, Varma M, Bailey DM. Guidelines for the macroscopic processing of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61:713–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng L, Montironi R, Bostwick DG, Lopez-Beltran A, Berney DM. Staging of prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60:87–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doud N, Li G, Evans AJ, van der Kwast TH. The value of triple antibody (34βE12 + p63 + AMACR) cocktail stain in radical prostatectomy specimens with crushed surgical margins. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65:437–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Epstein JI. Diagnosis of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Histopathology. 2012;60:28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein JI, Egvad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, et al. 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. 2016a;40:244–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016b;69:428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB. 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. 2016c;40:244–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017a;41:e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE. Contemporary gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017b;41:e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gleason D. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, editor. Urologic pathology. The prostate. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger; 1977. p. 171–98.Google Scholar
  13. Hendriks RJ, van Oort IM, Schalken JA. Blood-based and urinary prostate cancer biomarkers: a review and comparison of novel biomarkers for detection and treatment decisions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:12–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol. 2016;70:106–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kench JG, Delahunt B, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, McGowan T, Trpkov K, Varma M, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR. Dataset for reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: recommendations from the International collaboration on cancer reporting. Histopathology. 2013;62:203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kristiansen G. Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60:125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathieu R, Moschini M, Beyer B. Prognostic value of the new grade groups in prostate cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE, editors. WHO classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2016.Google Scholar
  19. Montironi R, Scarpelli M, Mazzucchelli R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A. The spectrum of morphology in non-neoplastic prostate including cancer mimics. Histopathology. 2012;60:41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paner GP, Aron M, Hansel DE, Amin AB. Non-epithelial neoplasms of the prostate. Histopathology. 2012;60:166–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prendeville S, Gertner M, Maganti M. Role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection of prostate cancer harboring adverse pathological features of intraductal carcinoma and invasive cribriform carcinoma. J Urol. 2018;S0022–5347:30175–7.Google Scholar
  23. Rubin MA, Girelli G, Demichelis F. Genomic correlates to the newly proposed grading prognostic groups for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;69:557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Evans AJ. Therapy-associated effects in the prostate gland. Histopathology. 2012;60:153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and datasets for reporting cancers Dataset for histopathology reports for prostatic carcinoma. 2016.
  26. Truong M, Feng C, Hollenberg G. A comprehensive analysis of cribriform morphology on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy correlated with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2018;199:106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vainer B, Toft BG, Olsen KE, Jacobsen GK, Marcussen N. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding? Histopathology. 2011;58:211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van der Kwast Th H, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl C-G, Neetens I, Martikainen P, Di Lollo S, Bubendolf L, Hoedemaeker RF, Members of the Pathology Committee of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56:336–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Varma M, Egevad L, Delahunt B, Kristiansen G. Reporting intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a plea for greater standardization. Histopathology. 2016;70:504–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wobker SE, Epstein JI. Differential diagnosis of intraductal lesions of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:e67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PathologyRoyal Victoria HospitalBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations