Utility of immunohistochemistry for alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase in distinguishing atrophic prostate cancer from benign atrophy

Aberrant protein expression of Appl1, Sortilin and Syndecan-1 during the biological progression of prostate cancer

Diagnosis and assessment of patients with prostate cancer is dependent on accurate interpretation and grading of histopathology. However, morphology does not necessarily reflect the complex biological changes occurring in prostate cancer disease progression, and current biomarkers have demonstrated limited clinical utility in patient assessment. This study aimed to develop biomarkers that accurately define prostate cancer biology by distinguishing specific pathological features that enable reliable interpretation of pathology for accurate Gleason grading of patients. Online gene expression databases were interrogated and a pathogenic pathway for prostate cancer was identified. The protein expression of key genes in the pathway, including adaptor protein containing a pleckstrin homology (PH) domain, phosphotyrosine-binding (PTB) domain, and leucine zipper motif 1 (Appl1), Sortilin and Syndecan-1, was examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a pilot study of 29 patients with prostate cancer, using monoclonal antibodies designed against unique epitopes. Appl1, Sortilin, and Syndecan-1 expression was first assessed in a tissue microarray cohort of 112 patient samples, demonstrating that the monoclonal antibodies clearly illustrate gland morphologies. To determine the impact of a novel IHC-assisted interpretation (the utility of Appl1, Sortilin, and Syndecan-1 labelling as a panel) of Gleason grading, versus standard haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) Gleason grade assignment, a radical prostatectomy sample cohort comprising 114 patients was assessed. In comparison to H&E, the utility of the biomarker panel reduced subjectivity in interpretation of prostate cancer tissue morphology and improved the reliability of pathology assessment, resulting in Gleason grade redistribution for 41% of patient samples. Importantly, for equivocal IHC-assisted labelling and H&E staining results, the cancer morphology interpretation could be more accurately applied upon re-review of the H&E tissue sections. This study addresses a key issue in the field of prostate cancer pathology by presenting a novel combination of three biomarkers and has the potential to transform clinical pathology practice by standardising the interpretation of the tissue morphology.

Histological patterns, subtypes and aspects of prostate cancer: different aspects, different outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The most common prostatic cancers (PCa) are acinary adenocarcinomas. Histological subtypes have been variably defined. The purpose of this review is to discuss unusual histological patterns and subtypes of acinar adenocarcinoma, as well as other types of PCa and their prognostic and therapeutic relevance.

RECENT FINDINGS

The new term 'subtype' for morphologically defined tumor entities replaced the term 'variant' in the new 2022 classification of the WHO to allow for clear terminological distinction from genetic variants. The 2022 WHO classification mentions prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like carcinoma, signet-cell-like adenocarcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma and pleomorphic-giant-cell adenocarcinoma of the prostate as true subtypes of acinary PCa. Other forms of acinary PCa are termed unusual histological patterns and include atrophic, foamy-cell, microcystic, pseudohyperplastic and mucinous patterns. Nonacinar forms of prostate cancer include other glandular PCa, the ductal adenocarcinoma and the treatment-associated neuroendocrine carcinoma, and nonglandular PCa, the adenosquamous carcinoma, the squamous cell carcinoma and the adenoid cystic (basal cell) carcinoma of the prostate.

SUMMARY

True subtypes of acinary PCa and other forms of glandular and nonglandular PCa show relevant differences in prognosis and treatment approach compared with classic acinary PCa. The relevance of unusual histological patterns mainly lies in their deceptive benign appearance and the need for pathologists to know about these entities for accurate and timely diagnosis.

The Role of AMACR, CD10, TMPRSS2-ERG, and p27 Protein Expression Among Different Gleason Grades of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy

OBJECTIVE

We examined the immunohistochemical expression of α-methyl acyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR), CD10, TMPRSS2-ERG, and p27 in prostate adenocarcinoma tumors with different Gleason growth patterns and nonneoplastic prostate tissues to elucidate their roles in prostate carcinogenesis and histological aggressiveness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In total, 80 archival core biopsy tissues diagnosed as prostate carcinoma, benign prostate hyperplasia, and atrophy cases were included. Immunoreactivity was evaluated by calculating the percentage of positively stained cells and the staining intensity. The mean values and test of significance were obtained using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

We obtained mostly intense immunoreactivity for AMACR, CD10, and ERG in adenocarcinomas. Although no significant differences were noted regarding AMACR and ERG expression, samples with Gleason growth patterns 3 and 5 tended to be strongly positive for ERG. Pattern 3 tumors exhibited the weakest positivity for CD10. The p27 expression was strong and diffuse in nonneoplastic prostate tissues. The loss of p27 expression was more frequent for pattern 5 tumors.

CONCLUSION

ERG and AMACR were powerful markers to detect cancer. Especially, ERG is evident in early tumors may reflect its interaction with functional androgen receptors in cancer initiation. Pattern 5 tumors associated with stroma may have been exposed to more stromal substrates and upregulate their CD10 content as a protein degrader. We suggest that CD10 expression is associated with an increasing tumor grade. Decreased concentrations of p27 protein might be implicated in prostate carcinogenesis and may be a useful immunohistochemical adjunct in predicting histological aggressiveness.

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.

Prostate-specific markers to identify rare prostate cancer cells in liquid biopsies

Despite improvements in early detection and advances in treatment, patients with prostate cancer continue to die from their disease. Minimal residual disease after primary definitive treatment can lead to relapse and distant metastases, and increasing evidence suggests that circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and bone marrow-derived disseminated tumour cells (BM-DTCs) can offer clinically relevant biological insights into prostate cancer dissemination and metastasis. Using epithelial markers to accurately detect CTCs and BM-DTCs is associated with difficulties, and prostate-specific markers are needed for the detection of these cells using rare cell assays. Putative prostate-specific markers have been identified, and an optimized strategy for staining rare cancer cells from liquid biopsies using these markers is required. The ideal prostate-specific marker will be expressed on every CTC or BM-DTC throughout disease progression (giving high sensitivity) and will not be expressed on non-prostate-cancer cells in the sample (giving high specificity). Some markers might not be specific enough to the prostate to be used as individual markers of prostate cancer cells, whereas others could be truly prostate-specific and would make ideal markers for use in rare cell assays. The goal of future studies is to use sensitive and specific prostate markers to consistently and reliably identify rare cancer cells.

Morphological and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers in Distinguishing Prostate Carcinoma and Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review

The differential diagnosis between high-grade prostate carcinoma and infiltrating urothelial carcinoma (UC) in transurethral resection prostate specimens as well as cystoprostatectomy specimens may often be challenging due to morphologic and clinical overlap of the 2 entities. Such distinction has critical therapeutic and staging consequences, yet it is hampered by both issues in morphology and by the low accuracy rates of single immunohistochemical markers, as reported in literature. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available morphological and immunohistochemical parameters, which may allow to discriminate between prostate carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma in the proper clinical context and to discuss their diagnostic applications in daily practice.

Benign mimics of prostatic adenocarcinoma

Benign mimics present either as common challenges in daily routine practice or may cause diagnostic dilemmas because some are less commonly seen and one may be less familiar in recognizing them. There are a multitude of mimics of prostatic adenocarcinoma, which may represent normal gland structures, benign proliferations, atrophic lesions, hyperplastic or metaplastic changes, and inflammatory processes. Some of them are preferentially found in certain anatomic areas of the prostate, either confined to the prostate, or outside of the gland. Various benign mimics of prostatic carcinoma may be also evaluated based on their morphologic similarity to Gleason patterns 3-5 of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Most of the mimics are easily recognizable in larger specimens, such as TUR of the prostate or radical prostatectomy specimens, but they may pose diagnostic problems when the evaluation is done on limited tissue, such as needle-core biopsies or if prostate specimens are infrequently encountered in practice. Therefore, before signing out a report with a diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma, pathologists should carefully consider and rule out the various benign lesions that may mimic carcinoma. This is particularly relevant in the current prostate biopsy practice which relies on using extended biopsy core templates. The awareness and familiarity with the characteristic features of the mimics and judicial use of additional ancillary tests, including immunohistochemistry can prevent overdiagnosis and false-positive interpretation. This review provides a contemporary update on the broad spectrum of the benign prostatic lesions that can mimic prostate adenocarcinoma, outlines their key morphologic and immunohistochemical diagnostic features, and provides a diagnostic, pattern-based approach in establishing a correct diagnosis and distinguishing them reliably from prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Prostate cancer: diagnostic criteria and role of immunohistochemistry

The diagnosis of prostate cancer is based on microscopic criteria. Presently, prostate needle biopsy interpretation can be a challenge for the pathologist due to the increased number of specimens with limited amount of suspicious glands and minimal atypia. It is critical for the pathologist to have an organized methodical approach when considering the morphological features enabling a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. Although several diagnostic criteria and supportive features have been advocated, only few findings are absolutely specific and diagnostic of prostate cancer. The diagnosis of prostate cancer relies on a combination of architectural and cytological features that are reviewed in detail herein. Infiltrative growth pattern, prominent nucleoli and lack of basal cells are the most useful diagnostic criteria. Perineural invasion, glomerulation and mucinous fibroplasia are pathognomonic features of prostate cancer, although uncommon on small prostate cancer foci. The role of immunohistochemistry in establishing a diagnosis of limited prostate is addressed.

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.

Urinary RNA-based biomarkers for prostate cancer detection

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest malignancy in the male population worldwide. Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) test is the most important biomarker for the detection, follow-up and therapeutic monitoring of PCa. Defects in PSA specificity have elicited research for new biomarkers to improve early diagnosis and avoid false-positive results. This review evaluates urinary RNA-based biomarkers. Urine is a versatile body fluid for non-invasive biomarker detection in case of urological malignancies. The importance of RNA-based biomarkers has been demonstrated by the current use of PCA3, a long non coding RNA biomarker already approved by the Food and Drugs Administration. Through the years, other urinary RNA biomarkers have been evaluated, including the well-known TMPRSS2:ERG transcript, as well as many messenger RNAs, long non coding RNAs and micro-RNA. Validation of a specific urinary RNA-based marker or an algorithm of different biomarkers levels as diagnostic markers for PCa could be useful to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies.

MAGI-2 Is a Sensitive and Specific Marker of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: A Comparison With AMACR

OBJECTIVES

We compared the utility of membrane-associated guanylate kinase, WW and PDZ domain-containing protein 2 (MAGI-2) and α-methylacyl CoA (AMACR) by immunohistochemistry in diagnosing prostatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Seventy-eight radical prostatectomies were used to construct three tissue microarrays with 512 cores, including benign prostatic tissue, benign prostatic hyperplasia, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), and adenocarcinoma. AMACR and MAGI-2 immunohistochemistry were evaluated by visual and image analysis.

RESULTS

MAGI-2 and AMACR were significantly higher in adenocarcinoma and HGPIN compared with benign tissue. At H-score cutoffs of 300 and 200, MAGI-2 was more accurate in distinguishing benign from malignant glands than AMACR. Areas under the curve by image and visual analysis were 0.846 and 0.818 for MAGI-2 and 0.937 and 0.924 for AMACR, respectively. The accuracy of MAGI-2 in distinguishing benign from malignant glands on the same core was higher (95% vs 88%).

CONCLUSIONS

MAGI-2 could represent a useful adjunct for diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, especially when AMACR is not discriminatory.

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.

Morphologic Updates in Prostate Pathology

In the past several years, modifications have been made to the original Gleason system with resultant therapeutic and prognostic implications. Several morphologic variants of prostatic adenocarcinoma have also been described. Prostate pathology has also evolved over the years with the discovery and utility of new immunohistochemical stains. The topics discussed in this update include the Gleason grading system, prognostic grade grouping, variants of prostatic adenocarcinoma, and the application of immunohistochemistry to prostate pathology.

Pseudohyperplastic prostate carcinoma: histologic patterns and differential diagnosis

The similarity between some carcinomas and many benign glandular proliferations has been mentioned in the literature for decades. The description of the main histologic features of pseudohyperplastic carcinoma has been very useful in avoiding errors of interpretation, particularly false-negative results. In recent years, we have found some histologic variants of this neoplasm that have not been mentioned previously. In order to classify the different histologic growth patterns and comment on their differential diagnosis, we reviewed the architectural and cytologic features of 34 cases of pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma in 2 radical prostatectomies, 4 transurethral resections, and 28 needle biopsies. Growth patterns most commonly observed included nodular, complex, and mixed (nodular and complex) patterns. Other less frequent histologic varieties included adenosis-like pattern, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia-like pattern, pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma with xanthomatous features, and limited pseudohyperplastic adenocarcinoma. Frequent changes in neoplastic glands included papillary infoldings, large/cystic glands, and branching. Criteria associated with malignancy include nuclear enlargement (92%), apparent nucleoli (85%), pink amorphous secretions (78%), and transition to small acinar carcinoma (70%). However, in some biopsies, nuclear atypia was little apparent. Fifteen of the 34 cases were misdiagnosed as benign and 5 as other malignant neoplasms, and included the following diagnoses: hyperplastic nodules (11), prostatic adenosis (2), diffuse adenosis of the peripheral zone (1), benign cystic glands (1), and less frequently other malignant tumors including xanthomatous carcinoma (2), low-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma (2), and atrophic carcinoma (1). It is important to recognize the different growth patterns of this neoplasm in order to avoid an underdiagnosis of malignancy.

The Application of Immunohistochemical Biomarkers in Urologic Surgical Pathology

Context

Tumors of the genitourinary tract can be diagnostically challenging, particularly in core biopsies and cystoscopic biopsies with limited material. Immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool to use when morphology alone is insufficient for diagnosis.

Objectives

To review tumors and benign lesions of the kidney, urinary bladder, prostate gland, testis, and paratesticular structures with an emphasis on difficult differential diagnoses, as well as staining patterns in normal tissue. Recommended immunohistochemical stain panels are discussed that can assist in the diagnostic workup.

Data Sources

Review of current literature.

Conclusions

Immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool, assisting in the diagnosis of problematic tumors and benign lesions of the genitourinary tract.

A-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) and prostate-cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 4,385 participants

Background

Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) is a mitochondrial and peroxisomal enzyme that is overexpressed in prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to confirm and expand the findings that the PCa risk increased in men associated with AMACR expression across various geographic regions.

Methods

A systematic search of databases was carried out and other relevant articles were also identified. Then the meta-analyses were conducted according to the standard guidelines.

Results

A total of 22 studies with 4,385 participants were included on the basis of inclusion criteria. AMACR by IHC was significantly associated with increased diagnosis of PCa (OR = 76.08; 95% CI, 25.53–226.68; P<0.00001). Subgroup-analysis showed that findings didn’t substantially change when only Caucasians or Asians (OR = 51.23; 95% CI, 19.41–135.24; P<0.00001) were considered. Expression of AMACR by PCR in relation to PCa risk suggested that AMACR was associated with PCa (OR = 33.60; 95% CI, 4.67–241.77; P<0.00001). There was also no significant publication bias observed.

Conclusions

Our findings provide further evidences that the expression of AMACR contribute to PCa risk. AMACR protein overexpression was found in prostate cancers, low expression in any of the normal tissues or in benign prostatic tissue. AMACR is potentially an important prostate tumor marker.

Detection of α-Methylacyl-Coenzyme-A Racemase Transcripts in Blood and Urine Samples of Prostate Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme-A racemase (AMACR) has been shown to be a highly specific marker for prostate cancer cells, even in the earliest stages of malignant progression. It is expressed at much higher levels than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in malignant tissues, and is not expressed at appreciable levels in normal prostatic epithelium. In this study, we demonstrate the quantitative detection of AMACR transcripts in peripheral blood of prostate cancer patients using real-time RT-PCR. In addition, we have undertaken a pilot study to demonstrate the potential application of this technique for the detection of prostate tumor cells in urine samples from patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

A real-time RT-PCR assay was developed for detection of the expression of AMACR in prostate cancer patients. Blood samples from 163 patients were tested at various stages of disease progression, with or without therapy. Blood specimens from patients with benign prostate disorders and other types of cancer were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In 28 of 58 samples from patients with known metastatic disease who were undergoing treatment, an AMACR expression signal above the cut-off value was detected, consistent with the presence of circulating tumor cells. In 39 of 88 patients with presumptive organ-confined disease, there was evidence of low levels of circulating tumor cells. Comparison of AMACR RT-PCR with known serum PSA values indicated that a combination of these parameters significantly increased the sensitivity for detection of progressive disease. In a pilot study analyzing urine samples from seven prostate cancer patients, elevated AMACR expression levels were detected in the urine sediments of four of six stage-T1 prostate cancer patients and in the one patient with stage-T2 prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The data presented in this study indicates that AMACR real-time RT-PCR may aid in the detection and staging of prostate cancer.

Variants and unusual patterns of prostate cancer: clinicopathologic and differential diagnostic considerations

Beyond the typical acinar morphology observed in the majority of prostatic adenocarcinomas, a spectrum of morphologic variants and prostate cancer subtypes exists. These unusual entities may be classified as: (1) cancer morphologies arising by divergent differentiation of prostatic ductal, acinar, or basal cells and associated with unique clinical features and/or therapeutic approaches, and (2) histologies occurring in the context of usual prostatic adenocarcinoma that may result in diagnostic misinterpretation or difficulties in Gleason grade assignment, especially in limited samples. This article details a number of variants, with emphasis on diagnostic criteria, differential diagnoses, and clinical significance.

Selected common diagnostic problems in urologic pathology: perspectives from a large consult service in genitourinary pathology

CONTEXT

Several common differential diagnoses are encountered in urologic pathology, frequently causing patient referrals for a second opinion.

OBJECTIVES

To review 3 common differential diagnoses encountered in a large consultation service in genitourinary pathology, including partial atrophy versus prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma, oncocytoma versus chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma in situ versus normal urothelium and reactive atypia. We will discuss the detailed, morphologically distinctive features and the usefulness of immunohistochemistry.

DATA SOURCES

Personal experience and review of the current literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful morphologic assessment and awareness of diagnostic pitfalls are fundamental in reaching a definitive diagnosis in most cases. Immunohistochemistry is useful but should be used only in conjunction with the morphologic impression.

The utility of ERG/P63 double immunohistochemical staining in the diagnosis of limited cancer in prostate needle biopsies

Diagnosis of limited cancer can be challenging in prostate needle biopsies, and immunohistochemistry is commonly used in such settings. Recently, TMPRSS2:ERG gene rearrangement was found to be highly specific for and detected in approximately 50% of prostate cancer. Positive immunohistochemical staining with a novel anti-ERG antibody highly correlated with TMPRSS2:ERG gene rearrangement status. We developed a double immunohistochemical staining containing both erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogen (ERG) and basal cell marker P63 antibodies and evaluated its use in the diagnosis of limited cancer in prostate needle biopsies. A total of 77 prostate needle biopsies containing cancer occupying <1 mm of the length of only 1 core of the entire biopsy set were stained with the double stain containing ERG and P63 antibodies. ERG positivity and its staining intensity in cancerous and other noncancerous lesions were evaluated. ERG expression was detected in 42% (32 of 77) of cases, with strong, moderate, and weak staining intensity in 72%, 16%, and 12% of cases. The staining was uniform in 84% of cases and heterogeneous in 16% of cases with different staining intensities in >10% of cancerous cells. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was present in 17 cases, and in 5 (29%) cases ERG was positive in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia glands, which were all immediately adjacent to or intermingled with ERG-positive cancerous glands. In 4 additional cases, positive ERG staining was found in morphologically benign glands, which were also immediately adjacent to or intermingled with ERG-positive cancerous glands. All other benign lesions distant from cancerous glands, including simple and partial atrophy, were negative for ERG. P63 was negative in all cancerous glands and positive in noncancerous lesions. The P63/ERG double immunostain combines the high sensitivity of P63 and the high specificity of ERG and may be potentially useful in the work-up of difficult prostate biopsies. The high specificity of ERG for the presence of cancer may have important implications for prostate biopsy interpretation and needs to be further validated in larger prospective studies.

Diagnostic utility of p63/P501S double sequential immunohistochemical staining in differentiating urothelial carcinoma from prostate carcinoma

Background

Distinguishing urothelial carcinoma (UC) from prostate carcinoma (PC) is important due to potential therapeutic and prognostic implications. However, this can be a diagnostic challenge when there is limited tissue and in poorly differentiated tumors. We evaluated the diagnostic utility of a dual immunohistochemical stain comprising p63 and P501S (prostein), applied sequentially on a single slide and visualized by double chromogen reaction, in differentiating these two cancers. Thus far, there have been no previous studies assessing the diagnostic utility of p63 and P501S combined together as a dual immunostain in distinguishing between these two cancers.

Methods

p63/P501S dual-color sequential immunohistochemical staining was performed on archival material from 132 patients with high-grade UC and 23 patients with PC, and evaluated for p63 (brown nuclear) and P501S (red cytoplasmic) expression. Both the staining intensity and percentage of positive tumor cells were assessed.

Results

p63 was positive in 119/132 of UC and negative in PC. P501S was positive in 22/23 of PC and negative in UC. The p63+/P501S- immunoprofile had 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for UC. The p63-/P501S+ immunoprofile had 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity for PC.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that double sequential immunohistochemical staining with p63 and P501S is highly specific and can be a useful tool in distinguishing UC from PC especially when there is limited diagnostic tissue as it can be performed on a single slide.

Diagnostic biomarkers of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic tissue biomarkers for prostate cancer (PC) include basal cell markers and α-methylacyl-coenzyme A-racemase (AMACR), often used in combination. Their sensitivity and specificity are not perfect and there is a need for additional diagnostic biomarkers for PC in cases that are difficult to diagnose on routine stained sections.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of three novel tissue biomarkers for PC found through a search in the Human Protein Atlas database ( www.proteinatlas.com ): somatic cytochrome c (CYCS), intestinal cell kinase (ICK) and inhibitor of nuclear factor-κB kinase subunit beta (IKBKB), and compared the results with AMACR. A tissue microarray was constructed from 40 consecutive radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens including benign prostatic tissue, atrophy, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and PC. Immunoreactivity was scored based on staining intensity and extent. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on malignant and benign frozen tissue samples from 32 RP specimens.

RESULTS

All four biomarkers showed a stronger expression in PC and HGPIN than in benign tissue (p < 0.001). The highest diagnostic accuracy for PC was achieved with ICK and AMACR at 97%. The area under the curve for CYCS, ICK, IKBKB and AMACR was 0.859, 0.997, 0.865 and 0.983, respectively. The presence of mRNA transcripts of the genes was confirmed by real-time PCR in benign and malignant prostatic tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

AMACR is an accurate diagnostic tissue marker for PC. However, in some PCs AMACR is false negative and a panel of CYCS, ICK and IKBKB may serve as ancillary diagnostic tool.

Usefulness of cytokeratin 5/6 and AMACR applied as double sequential immunostains for diagnostic assessment of problematic prostate specimens

We evaluated the usefulness of double immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin (CK)5/6 and alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR) applied sequentially on 1 slide by assessing 223 foci in 110 consecutive prostate specimens. Double-chromogen reaction was used to visualize the antibodies: brown for CK5/6 and red for AMACR. Staining was scored as diffuse, focal, or negative. To establish the diagnosis, CK5/6 and AMACR were correlated with the morphologic features. All cancers lacked CK5/6 staining (100% specificity). AMACR showed diffuse or focal positivity in cancer, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and atypia in 96.8% (120/124), 85% (22/26), and 80% (16/20) of cases, respectively. In atypical cases, diagnosis was because of non-immunohistochemical staining reasons in 80% of cases. In adenosis (n = 14), AMACR was diffusely positive in 4 cases (29%). Double immunohistochemical staining for CK5/6 and AMACR is a simple assay to perform and may be used as an alternative to antibody cocktails for routine evaluation of problematic prostate specimens.

The path toward identifying prostatic stem cells

The concept that stem cells reside in prostate epithelia is well accepted and has led to significant efforts aimed at isolating and characterizing adult prostate stem/progenitor cells from both human and rodent prostate tissues. Understanding how prostatic stem and/or progenitor cells give rise to prostate epithelia during development and maintain homeostasis of the prostate gland in adulthood is a major research focus. Furthermore, the ability to identify and manipulate prostatic stem cells (PSCs) holds enormous promise for the development of new approaches to manage and treat prostate cancer. This review maps the pathways to identifying, isolating, characterizing, and understanding the differentiation capacity of PSCs.

Variants and Unusual Patterns of Prostate Cancer

Beyond the typical acinar morphology observed in most prostatic adenocarcinoma, a spectrum of morphologic variants and prostate cancer subtypes exists. These unusual entities may be further classified into (1) cancer morphologies arising by divergent differentiation of prostatic ductal, acinar, or basal cells and associated with unique clinical features or therapeutic approaches, and (2) histologies occurring in the context of usual prostatic adenocarcinoma that may result in diagnostic misinterpretation or difficulties in Gleason grade assignment, especially in limited samples. This article details several variants, with emphasis on diagnostic criteria, differential diagnoses, and clinical significance.

Benign Mimickers of Prostate Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy and Transurethral Resection

Prostate needle biopsy currently is the gold standard method for the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of prostate cancer. Obtaining an accurate diagnosis is crucial for pursuing proper patient management. This article discusses histologic mimickers of prostate carcinoma highlighting microscopic features that are helpful to reach a correct diagnosis and emphasizing potential diagnostic pitfalls.

[New markers in prostate biopsies]

The use of serum prostate-specific antigen screening to facilitate early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of prostate needle core biopsies which pathologists must examine. This has been accompanied by a strong increase in the number of biopsies with ambiguous lesions, and an unequivocal diagnosis of malignancy is difficult to render, especially in the case of limited foci or in small atypical acinar lesions. When assessing small foci of atypical glands upon needle biopsy, the pathologist searches for differences between the benign glands and atypical glands in terms of usual morphological features and in such cases, immunohistochemical stains for basal cell markers such as 34betaE12 antibody or antibodies directed against cytokeratin 5 and 6 and more recently p63 may be a useful adjuvant to identify basal cells which are typically present in benign glands but absent in prostatic carcinoma. However several benign mimickers of prostate carcinoma, including atrophy, atypical adenomatous hyperplasia, nephrogenic adenoma can stain negatively with these antibodies and thus a negative basal cell marker immunostain alone does not exclude a diagnosis of benignancy. Alpha-methyl-coenzyme-A-racemase (AMACR) a new sensitive marker of prostate carcinoma, can be useful in confirming ambiguous lesion suspected for malignancy. Although, as with any immunohistochemical studies, problems exist in terms of both sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this review is to describe the histological features of prostatic carcinoma in case of small focus, and discuss the application of these new prostatic markers in the light of the current literature to highlight the best practice guidelines.

Heterogeneous expression of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase in prostatic cancer correlates with Gleason score

AIMS

Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) is a sensitive and specific immunohistochemical marker of prostatic malignancy, staining 80-100% of prostatic cancers with absent staining in benign glands. However, positive staining in benign conditions as well as low rates of AMACR reactivity in prostatic cancer variants have been described. Preliminary use of AMACR immunohistochemistry in our institution has suggested lower specificity and sensitivity for prostatic cancer than initially proposed. The aim of this study was to establish true rates of AMACR reactivity in prostatic cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS AND RESULTS

AMACR immunohistochemistry was performed on sections from 57 prostatic cancers and 44 BPH resections. Ninety-one percent of cancers were AMACR+, with diffuse (> 75%) tumour staining in 53% of cases. Thirty-eight percent of tumours showed heterogeneous expression (1-75% tumour staining). This was significantly correlated with increased Gleason score. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) was AMACR+ in 87% of cancers. Eleven percent of BPH showed moderate or strong staining in benign glands, focally mimicking the malignant staining pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms heterogeneous AMACR expression in prostatic cancer and shows a correlation with Gleason score. Positive staining in BPH is also documented, thus emphasizing the importance of interpreting AMACR immunohistochemistry in the context of other findings in a diagnostic setting.

α-Methylacyl-CoA-Racemase Expression in Adenocarcinoma, Dysplasia and Non-Neoplastic Epithelium of the Stomach

Alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase (AMACR) is an essential enzyme in the oxidation of bile acid intermediates and branched-chain fatty acids. This study aims to examine the expression pattern, as well as diagnostic and prognostic significance, of AMACR in carcinoma, dysplasia and non-neoplastic epithelium of the stomach. A total of 158 cases, including 66 cases of gastric carcinoma (GC), 48 cases of dysplasia and 44 cases of non-neoplastic gastric mucosa, were examined by immunohistochemistry for AMACR. AMACR expression was divided into two categories: negative (negative-weak staining intensity) and positive (moderate-strong staining intensity). AMACR immunoreactivity was detected in only 2 of 44 (4.5%) cases of non-neoplastic epithelium. A significantly high frequency of AMACR expression was found in 40 of 48 (83.3%) cases of dysplasia and 34 of 66 (51.5%) carcinoma cases compared with cases of non-neoplastic epithelium (p < 0.05). The frequency of AMACR expression was significantly higher in dysplasia than in carcinoma cases (p < 0.05). AMACR expression was higher in intestinal- than diffuse-type GC (p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study suggests that AMACR immunostaining aids in distinguishing malignant or precancerous lesions from reactive epithelial atypia in gastric biopsy specimens. It also suggests that AMACR expression is more likely to be associated with intestinal-type adenocarcinoma in gastric carcinogenesis.

Immunohistochemical Antibody Cocktail Staining (p63/HMWCK/AMACR) of Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Gleason Pattern 4 Cribriform and Noncribriform Acinar Adenocarcinomas of the Prostate

Overexpression of alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR) in combination with absence of basal cell markers [ie, p63 and high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK)] is typical of classic acinar prostatic adenocarcinoma. We studied the expression and diagnostic utility of p63/HMWCK/AMACR immunohistochemical cocktail staining in ductal adenocarcinoma and cribriform Gleason pattern 4 acinar prostate cancer and compared it to noncribriform Gleason pattern 4 acinar prostate cancer. One to 4 representative formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded archival tissue blocks from 62 radical prostatectomy specimens harboring prostate cancer of ductal (n=51), cribriform Gleason pattern 4 acinar (n=27), and noncribriform Gleason pattern 4 acinar adenocarcinoma (n=48) were included in this study. Immunohistochemistry was performed using a triple stain of AMACR, p63, and HMWCK. Only staining that was moderate or strong was considered positive. The percentage of staining intensity and the presence of occasional basal cells positive with p63/HMWCK were recorded in each histologic type of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Seventy-seven percent of ductal prostatic adenocarcinoma, 67% of cribriform acinar prostatic carcinoma, and 81% of noncribriform acinar prostatic carcinoma showed positive staining for AMACR. There was no statistically significant difference between AMACR staining among the 3 histologic types, although there was a trend for noncribriform acinar prostatic carcinoma to have greater expression of AMACR than cribriform acinar prostatic carcinoma (P=0.07). Staining was often heterogeneous, varying in staining intensities within the same histologic type of carcinoma. Basal cells were detectable by p63 and HMWCK in a patchy fashion in 31.4% (16/51) of ductal and 29.6% (8/27) of cribriform acinar carcinomas compared with 2.1% (1/48) of noncribriform acinar carcinomas. In summary: (1) the majority of prostatic ductal and cribriform acinar carcinomas strongly expressed AMACR, however, subpopulations of these prostatic carcinoma were either completely negative or only weakly positive; (2) AMACR staining was often heterogeneous in intensity in the same histologic type of tumor, even within the same case; (3) patchy basal cell staining in noncribriform acinar prostatic carcinoma is rare. In contrast, remnants of basal cells identified by p63/HMWCK were seen in a patchy fashion in a significant minority of both ductal and cribriform acinar prostatic adenocarcinoma, which most likely represents intraductal spread of tumor.

α-methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S)/34βE12/p63 triple cocktail stain in prostatic adenocarcinoma after hormonal therapy

Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) has recently been shown to be a highly sensitive marker for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, there is limited information concerning its utility as a marker for prostate carcinoma after hormonal therapy. Our current investigation was conducted to evaluate the expression of AMACR in patients with prostate carcinoma after hormonal therapy and assess its diagnostic utility in combination with p63 and high molecular weight cytokeratin (34betaE12) staining. Prostate tissues from 49 patients who had been treated with hormonal therapy were immunohistochemically analyzed for AMACR, 34betaE12, and p63 expression by a triple antibody cocktail stain. The staining intensities and the percentages of positively staining tumor cells were recorded. The correlations between AMACR expression and metastatic status, associated hormonal therapy regimens, and the extent of hormone therapy effect were analyzed. All malignant acini were completely negative for both basal cell markers (34betaE12 and p63). Tumor cells failed to demonstrate expression of AMACR in 14 (29%) of 49 cases. In the remaining 35 cases (71%), positive immunostaining for AMACR was noted, but with variable intensities and percentages of cells stained. Positive staining for AMACR in benign glands was not seen in any case. In all cases, basal cells were strongly stained by p63 in benign acini with a mean positive percentage of 96%. Similarly, basal cells in benign acini displayed moderate staining intensities for 34betaE12 in 3 (7%) of 41 cases and strong immunostaining for this marker in the remaining 38 cases (93%); the mean percentage of positive cells was 92%. alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase expression may be substantially diminished or entirely lost in prostate carcinoma after hormonal therapy. This variation in AMACR expression does not correlate with the metastatic status, the modality of hormonal therapy, or the extent of therapy-related effect. It is important that pathologists be aware that some hormonally treated prostate carcinomas do not express AMACR, and that immunostaining in such cases must be interpreted with caution. A triple cocktail stain using AMACR, 34betaE12, and p63 can be helpful in evaluating prostate specimens for the presence of residual or recurrent carcinoma after hormonal therapy for cancer.

What's new in prostate cancer disease assessment in 2006?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Issues relating to the disease are critical in the diagnosis, management, and prognostication of prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data have emerged regarding the disease of prostate cancer and its precursors. The diagnosis of prostate cancer on needle biopsy has been refined because of the recent discovery of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, which preferentially labels adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Modifications and additions to the Gleason grading system were published based on a consensus conference of urological pathologists. Various models have been proposed using Gleason score, clinical findings, as well as measurements of tumor volume on needle biopsy to enhance the prediction in men undergoing radical prostatectomy and to predict "insignificance". Several studies have confirmed that certain findings in radical prostatectomy are adverse, yet conflicting studies were published as to the independent prognosis of tumor volume. The risk of cancer following a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy has decreased to the point at which this author does not recommend a routine repeat needle biopsy within the first year following the diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes developments over the last year in the disease of prostate cancer and its precursors.

The prostate-specific G-protein coupled receptors PSGR and PSGR2 are prostate cancer biomarkers that are complementary to alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase

BACKGROUND

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) to detect alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) expression can be useful in the diagnosis of small foci of prostate cancer on needle biopsy specimens, although it still has limitations in terms of both sensitivity and specificity. We have previously described the increased expression of two prostate-specific G-protein coupled receptors (PSGR and PSGR2) in human prostate cancer. To examine their potential usefulness as cancer biomarkers, we have evaluated their expression relative to AMACR in prostate cancer tissues.

METHODS

Expression of PSGR, PSGR2, and AMACR were examined by quantitative reverse-transcriptase PCR in mRNAs from benign prostate and prostate cancer tissues. Expression of PSGR2 and AMACR was also examined by in situ hybridization using a prostate cancer tissue microarray.

RESULTS

By in situ hybridization, 24 of 40 prostate cancer cases showed concordant expression of PSGR2 and AMACR. However, in 16 cases there was significant discordance between expression levels of these two markers. By quantitative RT-PCR all three markers were substantially increased in cancer, with AMACR the most overexpressed (30-fold), followed by PSGR2 (13-fold) and PSGR (10-fold). AMACR was the best single marker of prostate cancer but in 7 of the 59 total cases the expression of AMACR was not significantly elevated while PSGR and/or PSGR2 were substantially elevated.

CONCLUSION

All three biomarkers are increased in prostate cancer but their expression is not completely concordant. There is a subset of cases in which analysis of expression of PSGR and/or PSGR2, in addition to AMACR, would be diagnostically useful.

Immunohistochemical detection of cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 in tissue and in serum from men with cancer or benign enlargement of the prostate gland

BACKGROUND

Recently, the gene for cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 (CRISP-3) was reported to be highly upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa) compared to benign prostatic tissue. The current aims were to investigate diagnostic use of tissue expression and immunodetection in serum of CRISP-3 for detection or monitoring of PCa.

METHODS

Radical prostatectomy specimens and tissue microarrays from transurethral resections and metastases were analyzed for CRISP-3 and PSA by immunohistochemistry. CRISP-3 in tissue homogenates and in serum was measured by an in-house ELISA and PSA by a commercially available immunoassay.

RESULTS

Immunostaining for CRISP-3 in benign prostatic epithelium was generally weak or not detectable. Specific and strong immunostaining was found in a major proportion of cells in high-grade prostatic-intraepithelial-neoplasia (HG-PIN,12/17 patients), in most primary tumors (111/115), and in lymph node (11/15) and bone (12/15) metastases. CRISP-3 immunostaining intensity was regularly strong in areas of Gleason grades 4/5, where PSA-immunoreaction was less intense. Serum levels of CRISP-3 were not different in patients with PCa (n=152) compared to men with BPH (n=81). There was a very weak co-variation between levels of CRISP-3 versus PSA in serum from PCa patients (P<0.05). After orchiectomy, levels of CRISP-3 in serum decreased in median with 11% compared to a 97% median decrease of PSA in serum from 15/20 patients with advanced PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong immunostaining for CRISP-3 is common in HG-PIN and preserved in most PCa specimens, which warrant further immunohistochemical studies of CRISP-3 in PCa. Serum levels of CRISP-3 do not primarily reflect PCa.

Utilidad de Bcl-2 como nuevo marcador de expresión de células basales en patología prostática

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate is often difficult in needle prostatic cores, where, additionally, the assessment of the presence of basal cells has demonstrated to be of paramount importance. Currently, the immunohistochemical expression of 34betaE12 antigen and p63 protein are the most utilized markers. In our study, we analyzed comparatively the expression of 34betaE12, p63, bcl-2 and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase in order to evaluate the usefulness of bcl-2 as a new marker of the basal cells in prostatic pathology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study comprises radical prostatectomy specimens from 48 patients which were studied in order to determine the lack of staining of basal cells in invasive tumor areas together with the expression of racemase. Likewise, the presence of basal cells in areas of atrophy, hyperplasia, adenosis, and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) was also examined. Within the areas of adenosis and PIN a discontinuous pattern of basal cell expression was found in some cases. In 2 out of 48 cases (4,2%) of invasive carcinoma a weak bcl-2 expression without a basal cell distribution was found. Moreover, the expression of bcl-2 in the stromal lymphocytes appeared to be essential as an internal positive control of the technique.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to classical markers, we demonstrated the diagnostic value of bcl-2 as a new basal cell marker.

Comparison of monoclonal antibody (P504S) and polyclonal antibody to alpha methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) in the work-up of prostate cancer

AIM

Studies using a monoclonal (P504S) and a polyclonal antibody (p-AMACR) to alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) have shown variable expression in prostate cancer (PCa). The goal is to compare the sensitivity of both antibodies in PCa and evaluate their utility in the work-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies (NBXs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A tissue microarray (TMA) with 248 samples of benign prostate, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and PCa samples, 20 NBXs with minute PCa and 32 NBXs with 'atypical' foci were stained with P504S and p-AMACR. Ninety percent of PCa (76/76 TMA, 16/20 NBXs) showed predominantly strong p-AMACR expression while 87% (65/69 TMA, 16/20 NBXs) showed variable P504S expression (sensitivity 90% versus 87%, P = 0.10). In HGPIN, P504S and p-AMACR were positive in 77% and 91% of samples, respectively. In the 'atypical' NBXs group, 53% were classified as PCa, 12% benign and 35% atypical, suspicious for PCa, after review of the basal marker. Of atypical, suspicious for PCa, P504S/p-AMACR helped convert the diagnosis to PCa in 5/11 (45%) cases, where, despite negative basal cell markers, morphology was less than optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between P504S and p-AMACR appear marginal and clinically insignificant. AMACR is negative in a subset of unequivocal minute PCa with both antibodies. However, when utilized in proper context, AMACR may offer significant advantage in converting an 'atypical' diagnosis to PCa where morphology and basal markers are less than optimal in resolving the diagnosis.

Age-Associated Changes in Alpha-Methyl CoA Racemase (AMACR) Expression in Nonneoplastic Prostatic Tissues

Alpha-methyl CoA racemase (AMACR) is overexpressed in several human cancers, most notably colon and prostate. AMACR expression in the prostate has been investigated primarily in patients, in an older age group, treated for prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hypertrophy. No studies have assessed the age distribution of AMACR expression in normal men. Archival paraffin-embedded prostate tissue from 41 organ donor men (age range, 13-63 years) with no evidence of prostate neoplasia was stained with a monoclonal antibody for AMACR. Intensity was graded on a scale of 0 to 3. Semi-quantitative analysis of staining in acinar cells was used to generate a composite score (CS) [Sigma(% area x intensity)] for each case. Nondonor cases with foci of prostate cancer and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) were used as external positive controls for AMACR. These sections were also stained for Ki-67, to assess proliferative index. The 41 cases encompassed different age groups (13-20 years, N = 11; 20-45 years, N = 17; >45 years, N = 13). Acinar cells showed granular cytoplasmic staining. Focal positive staining was also seen in the prostatic urethra and the periurethral glands. There was wide variation in the level of expression within each age group. The level of expression seen in subjects younger than 45 years was higher (mean CS = 41.3; median CS = 22.5) than that seen in subjects older than 45 years (mean CS = 8.8; median CS = 9.0) with a P value of 0.01. Most cases in the control set of prostatic adenocarcinoma cases showed moderate to strong staining. A negative correlation was seen evaluating CS and age in subjects 20 years of age and older (r = -0.47). Ki-67 staining was variable. 1) AMACR expression can be seen in benign prostatic glandular epithelium, across all age groups. However, it is age-related, with significantly lower expression in subjects younger than 45 years. This could account for the negative staining reported in benign glands, due to biased sampling of the older population. 2) Focal positive staining is seen in the prostatic urethra and periurethral glands in 71% of the cases, with no age correlation. This is of concern because this epithelium could potentially be misinterpreted as foci of PIN. 3) The low expression of AMACR in benign glands in the older age group makes this marker useful in detecting malignancy. However, AMACR staining should be interpreted with caution and the diagnosis of PIN or prostate cancer should be rendered only with convincing histologic evidence. 4) Ki-67 staining was very variable and showed no correlation with age and AMACR expression levels. AMACR expression had no correlation with proliferative index.

Diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry in morphologically difficult prostate cancer: review of current literature

Varma M & Jasani B (2005) Histopathology47, 1-16 Diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry in morphologically difficult prostate cancer: review of current literatureImmunohistochemistry is widely used to distinguish prostate cancer from benign mimics and to establish the prostatic origin of poorly differentiated carcinoma. We critically review the recent advances in prostate cancer immunohistochemistry, including the introduction of newer basal cell markers such as p63 and the discovery of the overexpression of alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR) in prostate cancer. The description of newer urothelial markers to aid the distinction of prostate cancer from urothelial carcinoma is also presented together with refinements in the quality control of PSA and PSAP immunostaining. Although AMACR is a useful immunohistochemical marker for prostate cancer, it has significant limitations. These limitations are discussed and the need for interpreting AMACR immunoreactivity in the appropriate morphological context and in conjunction with basal call markers is emphasized. We also describe the utility of an immunohistochemical panel composed of PSA, PSAP and high molecular weight cytokeratin for distinguishing poorly differentiated prostate cancer from high-grade urothelial carcinoma. A morphological differential diagnosis based selection of immunohistochemical markers is highlighted as a novel approach in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in routine surgical pathology practice.

Immunohistochemical Stains for p63 and α-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase, Versus a Cocktail Comprising Both, in the Diagnosis of Prostatic Carcinoma

The diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma and especially minimal prostatic carcinoma can sometimes be challenging on needle core biopsy and occasionally immunohistochemistry is an aid in the diagnosis. Immunostains, such as those directed against the basal cell marker p63 and, more recently, employing antibodies reactive with alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), can be useful in this situation. The aim of this investigation was to assess the diagnostic utility of a p63/AMACR antibody cocktail and compare the staining pattern it produces with that using the individual antibodies alone. A retrospective review of 31 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens and 150 prostate needle biopsy samples was performed to select histologic sections showing foci of prostatic carcinoma and/or minimal prostatic carcinoma, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), as well as common benign mimickers of prostatic carcinoma, to include atrophy and basal cell hyperplasia, especially with prominent nucleoli. Serial histologic sections from the corresponding paraffin blocks were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and by immunostains for p63, AMACR, and a prediluted antibody cocktail comprising both. The diagnostic utility of the cocktail was assessed, and the staining characteristics it produced were compared with those using the individual immunostains. In 430 foci, the cocktail produced a p63 staining profile identical to that using the single p63 antibody. Distinction of the nuclear p63 signal from the cytoplasmic AMACR localization was readily accomplished. There was an excellent agreement (kappa=0.91; P<0.0001) between the AMACR staining profile using the cocktail and the single AMACR antibody alone. The cocktail was very useful in highlighting prostatic carcinoma associated with HGPIN, flat and cribriform HGPIN, and distorted foci of minimal prostatic carcinoma. These data indicate that use of a p63/AMACR cocktail is essentially equivalent to use of each antibody separately for immunohistochemical confirmation of a diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsy. This cocktail would be of diagnostic utility when only limited tissue is available for immunohistochemical evaluation of small, diagnostically difficult foci in prostate needle biopsy tissue.

Immunohistochemistry in diagnostic surgical pathology of the prostate

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) can play an important role in diagnostic surgical pathology of the prostate. Basal cell markers, such as the 34betaE12 antibody and antibodies directed against cytokeratin 5 and 6 or p63, are very useful for demonstration of basal cells as their presence argues against a diagnosis of invasive prostatic carcinoma (PC). However, several benign mimickers of PC, including atrophy, atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH), nephrogenic adenoma, and mesonephric hyperplasia, can stain negatively with these markers, and thus, a negative basal cell marker immunostain alone does not exclude a diagnosis of benignancy. Although there are examples in the literature of high grade PC that stain focally with some of the basal cell markers, these cases are usually readily diagnosed based on H&E appearances and are unlikely to be confused with these benign mimickers. Alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme-A racemase (AMACR) is a sensitive marker of PC (except for a few uncommon variants: atrophic, foamy gland, and pseudohyperplastic variants), and its detection by immunohistochemical staining in atypical prostatic lesions can be very useful in confirming an impression of adenocarcinoma. AMACR expression can also be identified in high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), prostatic atrophy, AAH, and benign prostatic glands, and accordingly, a diagnosis of PC should not be based solely on a positive AMACR immunostain, especially when the luminal staining is weak and/or noncircumferential. The use of AMACR/basal cell antibody cocktails has been found to greatly facilitate the distinction between PC and its benign mimickers, especially when only limited tissue is available for staining. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) and prostate specific acid phosphatase (PSAP) are both quite sensitive and fairly specific markers of PC (there are a few nonprostatic tumors that can express one or both), and are both very helpful in establishing or confirming the diagnosis of PC when the differential diagnosis includes other tumors that can involve the prostate such as urinary bladder urothelial carcinoma. 34betaE12, p63, thrombomodulin, and uroplakin III are additional urothelial associated markers useful in this differential diagnosis. CDX2 and villin are useful markers to diagnostically separate colonic adenocarcinoma from PC. AMACR positivity and negative basal cell marker reactions are useful to confirm the presence of residual PC after hormonal or radiation therapy. Pan-cytokeratin, PSA, and PSAP can also highlight subtle infiltrates of PC with hormonal or radiation therapy effect. PSA and PSAP immunohistochemical stains are valuable in confirming metastatic carcinoma as being of prostatic origin and should always be utilized in the diagnostic evaluation of metastatic adenocarcinoma of unknown primary origin in males.