Advertisement

Prostate Gland Pathology

  • Maria Gkotzamanidou
  • Andreas C. Lazaris
  • Vasileios Spapis
  • Nikolaos Spetsieris
  • Popi Tsagaraki
Chapter

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).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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 94:528–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin MB (ed) (2010) Diagnostic pathology. Genitourinary. AMIRSYS, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bostwick DG, Chen L (eds) (2014) Urologic surgical pathology. MOSBY Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 23:1471–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 161:835–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 65Google Scholar
  9. Christensen WN, Steinberg G, Walsh PC et al (1991) Prostatic duct adenocarcinoma: findings at radical prostatectomy. Cancer 67:2118–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 350–379Google Scholar
  11. De Bono JS, Logothetis CJ, Molina A et al (2011) Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(21):1995–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eastham JA, Riedel E, Scardino PT et al (2003) Variation of serum prostate-specific antigen levels: an evaluation of year-to-year fluctuations. JAMA 289:2695–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 2593–2600Google Scholar
  14. 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 216:34–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175:820–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein JI, Netto GJ (2015) Biopsy interpretation of the prostate, 5th edn. Wolters Kluwer Health, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Epstein JI, Woodruff JM (1986) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with endometrioid features: a light microscopic and immunohistochemical study of ten cases. Cancer 57:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fine SW, Humphrey PA (2013) Modern prostate needle biopsy interpretation. Short course # 22, syllabus. United States & Canadian Academy of PathologyGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 167:516–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 77:669–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordetsky J, Epstein J (2016) Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol 11:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 54:581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamper U, Sheth S, Walsh P, Epstein J (1990) Βright echogenic foci in early prostatic carcinoma: sonographic and pathologic correlation. Radiology 176:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanks GE (1988) External-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: patterns of care studies in the United States. NCI Monogr 7:75–84Google Scholar
  25. Hemminki K (2012) Familial risk and familial survival in prostate cancer. World J Urol 30:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jansson KF, Akre O, Garmo H et al (2012) Concordance of tumor differentiation among brothers with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 62:656–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joniau S, Spahn M, Briganti A et al (2015) Pretreatment tables predicting pathologic stage of locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67(2):319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly IM, Lees WR, Rickards D (1993) Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US. Radiology 189:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leitzmann MF, Rohrmann S (2012) Risk factors for the onset of prostatic cancer: age, location, and behavioral correlates. Clin Epidemiol 4:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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):1207–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 42:325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montironi R, Santoni M, Mazzucchelli R et al (2016) Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 16(4):433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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 2018Google Scholar
  39. Nelson WG, De Marzo AM, Isaacs WB (2003) Prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349(4):366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M et al (2007) Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology 70:1117–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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–v77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):747–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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):843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pickup M, Van der Kwast TH (2007) My approach to intraductal lesions of the prostate gland. J Clin Pathol 60:856–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rifkin MD (1998) Prostate cancer: the diagnostic dilemma and the place of imaging in detection and staging. World J Urol 16(1):76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rifkin M, McGlynn E, Choi H (1989) Εchogenicity of prostate cancer correlated with histologic grade and stromal fibrosis: Εndorectal US studies. Radiology 170:549–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rifkin M, Sudakoff G, Alexander A (1993) Color Doppler imaging of prostate : Τechniques, results and potential applications. Radiology 186:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts JA, Zhou M, Park YW et al (2013) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comprehensive and concise review. Korean J Pathol 47(4):307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Samaratunga H, Duffy D, Yaxley J et al (2010) Any proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens predicts extraprostatic extension. Hum Pathol 41:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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):1470–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 64–66Google Scholar
  53. 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):494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 462:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 7:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67(1):7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 317:909–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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):1155–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tabar et al (2013) Prostate and breast: brother and sister organs 3D book series, vol II. Tabar Foundation, Sweden Google Scholar
  60. Tan DS, Mok TS, Rebbeck TR (2016) Cancer genomics: diversity and disparity across ethnicity and geography. J Clin Oncol 34:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 32:1060–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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):751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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):493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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):1331–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Gkotzamanidou
    • 1
  • Andreas C. Lazaris
    • 1
  • Vasileios Spapis
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Spetsieris
    • 1
  • Popi Tsagaraki
    • 1
  1. 1.AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations