Pseudohyperplastic prostate carcinoma: histologic patterns and differential diagnosis

Prostatic adenocarcinoma with a peculiar morphology – a rare case of pseudohyperplastic variant with inverted polarity

Background

The inverted (hobnail) variant of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) has been reported in two previous series and one case of inverted polarity in invasive adenocarcinoma has been reported. We reported an additional case of invasive carcinoma with this peculiar morphology.

Case presentation

We reported an additional case of invasive carcinoma with this peculiar morphology. A prostatectomy specimen of a 64-year-old patient showed a GG2 adenocarcinoma with extensive intraprostatic perineural infiltration and extraprostatic extension. Half of the entire tumor showed a distinctive inverted morphology.

Conclusion

Although pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma is believed to be a low-grade tumor to be graded as Gleason pattern 3, awareness of this morphology is important to collect more information on its biologic behavior and clinical implication.

A case of bulky pseudohyperplastic prostatic adenocarcinoma

A 67-year-old male with a pelvic mass 13 × 7 cm in dimension was diagnosed with a pseudohyperplastic prostatic adenocarcinoma via mass biopsy. Androgen-deprivation therapy was remarkably effective, resulting in rapid tumor shrinkage.

Atrophic and Microcystic Limited Prostatic Adenocarcinomas

Atrophic carcinoma and microcystic carcinoma have previously been classified as variants of conventional acinar adenocarcinoma. In this article, we studied 4 cases of atrophic carcinoma and 4 cases of limited microcystic carcinoma. We found an incidence of 0.8% in 250 needle prostatic biopsies and 1.3% of atrophic carcinoma in 150 radical prostatectomies. Microcystic carcinomas were found in 3 prostatectomies (1.2%) and in 1 needle biopsy (0.67%). The useful histological criteria for atrophic carcinoma included the irregular disposition of the glands, infiltrative pattern, "rigid" luminal borders, and intraluminal secretions. Cytological changes included scant cytoplasm, nucleomegaly, hyperchromatic nuclei, and visible nucleoli. The glands of the microcystic carcinoma differ from the benign glands because the malignant ones show a markedly greater dilatation and exhibit rigidity of glandular lumens. In some cases of microcystic carcinoma, the nuclei were flattened, small, and hyperchromatic; therefore, they can be difficult to recognize as malignant.

False-Negative Histopathologic Diagnosis of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

Context.—

Histopathologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate is based on light-microscopic examination of hematoxylin-eosin–stained tissue sections. Multiple factors, including preanalytic and analytic elements, affect the ability of the pathologist to accurately diagnose prostatic adenocarcinoma. False-negative diagnosis, that is, failure to diagnose prostatic adenocarcinoma, may have serious clinical consequences. It is important to delineate and understand those factors that may affect and cause histopathologic false-negative diagnoses of prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Objectives.—

To review common factors involved in histopathologic underdiagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, including the following: (1) tissue processing and sectioning artifacts, (2) minimal adenocarcinoma, (3) deceptively benign appearing variants of acinar adenocarcinoma, (4) single cell adenocarcinoma, and (5) treatment effects.

Data Sources.—

Data sources included published, peer-reviewed literature and personal experiences of the senior author.

Conclusions.—

Knowledge of the reasons for histopathologic false-negative diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an important component in the diagnostic assessment of prostate tissue sections. Diagnostic awareness of the histomorphologic presentations of small (minimal) adenocarcinoma; deceptively benign appearing variants including atrophic, foamy gland, microcystic, and pseudohyperplastic variants; single cell carcinoma; and treatment effects is critical for establishment of a definitive diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and the prevention of false-negative diagnoses of prostate cancer.

Previous, Current, and Future Pharmacotherapy and Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer-A Comprehensive Review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers in men that usually develops slowly. Since diagnostic methods improved in the last decade and are highly precise, more cancers are diagnosed at an early stage. Active surveillance or watchful waiting are appealing approaches for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer, and they are an antidote to the overtreatment problem and unnecessary biopsies. However, treatment depends on individual circumstances of a patient. Older hormonal therapies based on first generation antiandrogens and steroids were widely used in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients prior to the implementation of docetaxel. Nowadays, accordingly to randomized clinical trials, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide. and docetaxel became first line agents administrated in the treatment of mCRPC. Furthermore, radium-223 is an optional therapy for bone-only metastasis patients. Sipuleucel-T demonstrated an overall survival benefit. However, other novel immunotherapeutics showed limitations in monotherapy. Possible combinations of new vaccines or immune checkpoint blockers with enzalutamide, abiraterone, radium-223, or docetaxel are the subject of ongoing rivalry regarding optimal therapy of prostate cancer.

Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress

Grading of prostate cancer has evolved substantially over time, not least because of major changes in diagnostic approach and concomitant shifts from late- to early-stage detection since the adoption of PSA testing from the late 1980s. After the conception of the architecture-based nine-tier Gleason grading system more than 50 years ago, several changes were made in order to increase its prognostic impact, to reduce interobserver variation and to improve concordance between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy grading. This eventually resulted in the current five-tier grading system, with a much more detailed description of the individual architectural patterns constituting the remaining three Gleason patterns (i.e. grades 3-5). Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. For instance, distinction of common grade 4 subpatterns such as ill-formed and fused glands from the grade 3 pattern is challenging, blurring the division between low-risk patients who could be eligible for deferred therapy and those who need curative therapy. The last few years have witnessed the publication of several studies on the prognostic impact of individual architectural subpatterns showing that, in particular, the cribriform pattern exceeded the prognostic impact of other grade 4 subpatterns. This review provides an overview of the changes in prostate cancer grading over time and provides a thorough description of the various Gleason subpatterns, the current evidence of their prognostic impact and areas of contention. Potential practical ways for improvements of the current grading system are also put forward.

Variants of acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate mimicking benign conditions

Histological variants of acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate may be of significance due to difficulty in diagnosis or due to differences in prognosis compared to usual acinar adenocarcinoma. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of acinar adenocarcinoma includes four variants that are deceptively benign in histological appearance, such that a misdiagnosis of a benign condition may be made. These four variants are atrophic pattern adenocarcinoma, pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma, microcystic adenocarcinoma, and foamy gland adenocarcinoma. They differ from usual small acinar adenocarcinoma in architectural glandular structure and/or cytoplasmic and nuclear alterations. The variants are often admixed, in variable proportions, with usual small acinar adenocarcinoma that is often Gleason pattern 3 but may be high-grade pattern 4 in a minority of cases. Atrophic pattern adenocarcinoma can be identified in a sporadic setting or after radiation or hormonal therapy. This variant is characterized by cytoplasmic volume loss and can resemble benign glandular atrophy, an extremely common benign process in the prostate. The glands of pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma simulate usual epithelial hyperplasia, with gland complexity that is not typical of small acinar adenocarcinoma. These complex growth configurations include papillary infoldings, luminal undulations, and branching. Microcystic adenocarcinoma is characterized by cystic dilation of prostatic glands to a size that is much more commonly observed in cystic change in benign prostatic glands. Finally, the cells in foamy gland adenocarcinoma display cytoplasmic vacuolization and nuclear pyknosis, features that can found in benign glands and macrophages. Three of the four variants (atrophic, pseudohyperplastic, and microcystic) are assigned low-grade Gleason pattern 3. Of significance, foamy gland adenocarcinoma can be Gleason pattern 3 but can also be high-grade pattern 4 or 5. Diagnostic awareness of the existence of these deceptively benign-appearing variants of acinar adenocarcinoma is essential so that an accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer may be rendered.

Histopathology of Prostate Cancer

This review focuses on histopathological aspects of carcinoma of the prostate. A tissue diagnosis of adenocarcinoma is often essential for establishing a diagnosis of prostate cancer, and the foundation for a tissue diagnosis is currently light microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue sections. Markers detected by immunohistochemistry on tissue sections can support a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma that is primary in the prostate gland or metastatic. Histological variants of carcinoma of the prostate are important for diagnostic recognition of cancer or as clinicopathologic entities that have prognostic and/or therapeutic significance. Histological grading of adenocarcinoma of the prostate, including use of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grades and the new grade groups, is one of the most powerful prognostic indicators for clinically localized prostate cancer, and is one of the most critical factors in determination of management of these patients.

Minimal (Limited) Pseudohyperplastic Prostatic Adenocarcinoma in Needle Prostatic Biopsy

Background. Study of minimum adenocarcinoma has been done almost exclusively on conventional acinar adenocarcinoma. Pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma can be confused with benign lesions because of its well-differentiated appearance and has not been studied when the biopsy shows few malignant glands (limited carcinoma). Methods. We reviewed 94 pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinomas diagnosed in prostatic biopsies for a period of 12 years and selected those measuring less than 1 mm or involving less than 5% of the biopsied tissue. We also reviewed 200 consecutive consultations. Results. Four (4.2%) of the 94 cases were limited pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinomas, and 3 were from consultations. Three of them were mistaken for hyperplastic nodules, prostatic adenosis, or prostatic intraepithelial neoplasm. The number of glands varied between 6 and 50 (average 23). Three nodular histological patterns were identified—nodular, adenosis-like, and pseudohyperplastic carcinoma resembling prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. The diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was not related to the number of neoplastic glands. Histological criteria that were useful included: crowded medium to large glands, papillary infoldings, branching glands, straight luminal borders, hyperchromatic nuclei, nucleomegaly, and apparent nucleoli. Areas of transition to conventional acinar adenocarcinoma were useful in recognizing four of these neoplasms, but were barely apparent in 2 of them. Hyperchromatic nuclei were found in all cases, whereas apparent nucleoli and nucleomegaly were only present in 4. Conclusions. The architectural and cytological criteria for limited acinar adenocarcinoma are only partially useful in interpreting minimum pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinomas. Knowledge of the criteria for malignancy in both neoplasms is important in order to avoid underdiagnosis of malignancy.

The pathology of unusual subtypes of prostate cancer

There are some current literatures describing the morphologic change of prostate carcinoma variants. Some subtypes do not respond to hormone deprivation therapy, for example adenosquamous and squamous cell carcinoma (SQCC), basaloid and adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), small cell carcinoma (SmCC), sarcomatoid carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma; some are defined in special Gleason grade, some develop different prognosis. So, it is very important to identify these rare subtypes to avoid misdiagnosis. In this review, we aim to describe the typical clinicopathological features of the rare variants of prostate cancer, including prostate acinar adenocarcinoma morphologic variants.

Pseudohyperplastic Adenocarcinoma With Foamy Changes in Needle Prostate Biopsy and Prostatectomy

Pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma (PHA) with foamy changes is composed of neoplastic glands that show a cytoarchitectural combination of both neoplasms. However, none of the previously reported cases have shown typical areas of foamy or PHA. We report on the clinicopathological characteristics of 5 cases consisting predominantly of pseudohyperplastic and foamy adenocarcinomas. In several histological fields, this neoplasm mimicked hyperplastic nodules or prostatic adenosis because they showed the nodular pattern of the PHA and the inconspicuous cytological atypia of foamy gland carcinoma. Four cases had a Gleason score of 6. In the prostatectomies, the neoplasm was limited to the prostatic gland. The evolution has been favorable in all patients after 3 years of follow-up, on average. The cases reported herein demonstrate that PHA and foamy adenocarcinoma may be associated and occasionally show overlapping histological criteria. The PHA with foamy changes must be distinguished from conventional foamy adenocarcinoma and PHA because it can closely resemble hyperplastic glands mainly in needle prostatic biopsy.

Prostate Cancer Grading: A Decade After the 2005 Modified Gleason Grading System

Since 1966, when Donald Gleason, MD, first proposed grading prostate cancer based on its histologic architecture, there have been numerous changes in clinical and pathologic practices relating to prostate cancer. Patterns 1 and 2, comprising more than 30% of cases in the original publications by Gleason, are no longer reported on biopsy and are rarely diagnosed on radical prostatectomy. Many of these cases may even have been mimickers of prostate cancer that were described later with the use of contemporary immunohistochemistry. The original Gleason system predated many newly described variants of prostate cancer and our current concept of intraductal carcinoma. Gleason also did not describe how to report prostate cancer on biopsy with multiple cores of cancer or on radical prostatectomy with separate tumor nodules. To address these issues, the International Society of Urological Pathology first made revisions to the grading system in 2005, and subsequently in 2014. Additionally, a new grading system composed of Grade Groups 1 to 5 that was first developed in 2013 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and subsequently validated in a large multi-institutional and multimodal study was presented at the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology meeting and accepted both by participating pathologists as well as urologists, oncologists, and radiation therapists. In the present study, we describe updates to the grading of prostate cancer along with the new grading system.