1
|
Mullane P, Williamson SR, Sangoi AR. Topline/Final Diagnostic Inclusion of Relevant Histologic Findings in Surgical Pathology Reporting of Carcinoma in Prostate Biopsies. Int J Surg Pathol 2024:10668969241231972. [PMID: 38504649 DOI: 10.1177/10668969241231972] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As the list of histologic parameters to include in surgical pathology reports of prostate cancer biopsies grows, some pathologists include this information in the microscopic description or summary sections of the report, whereas others include it in the "topline" or final diagnosis section. This prompted us to develop a multi-institutional survey to assess reporting trends among genitourinary (GU) pathologists. METHODS A survey instrument was shared among 110 GU pathologists via surveymonkey.com. Anonymized respondent data was analyzed. RESULTS Eighty-four (76%) participants completed the survey across four continents. Most participants report tumor volume quantitation (88%), number of cores involved (89%), and both Gleason grade and Grade group (93%) in their topline; 71% include percent of pattern 4, with another 16% including it depending on cancer grade; 58% include the presence of cribriform growth pattern 4, with another 11% including it depending on cancer grade. When present, most include extraprostatic extension (90%), prostatic intraductal carcinoma (77%), and perineural invasion (77%). Inclusion of atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) in the topline diagnosis was cancer grade-dependent, with 74% including AIP in Grade group 1, 61% in Grade group 2, 45% in Grade group 3, 30% in Grade group 4, and 26% in Grade group 5 cancers. CONCLUSION Certain histologic features such as Gleason grade and tumor volume/cores involved are frequently included in the topline diagnosis, whereas the incorporation of other findings are more variably included. Prostate biopsy reporting remains a dynamic process with stylistic similarities and differences existing among GU pathologists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Mullane
- Department of Pathology, Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Ankur R Sangoi
- Department of Pathology, Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Berney DM, Finnegan K, Chu K, Fine SW, Varma M, Cuzick J, Beltran L. Measuring cancer burden in prostatic needle core biopsies: simplified assessments outperform complex measurements in assessing outcome: evidence to assist pathologist efficiency and minimize datasets. Histopathology 2023; 82:1021-1028. [PMID: 36779238 PMCID: PMC10192044 DOI: 10.1111/his.14886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 02/14/2023]
Abstract
AIMS The optimal method of measuring cancer extent in prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Nine hundred eighty-one men with clinically localised PCa managed conservatively were reviewed with follow up. The number of positive cores (NPC), the Maximum Cancer Length in a core (MCL), Total Cancer Length (TCL), and percentage of positive cores (%+cores) was calculated and univariate and multivariate analysis performed using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), T-stage, and Gleason score. The presence of stromal gaps (SG) was recorded. Univariate models were run where SG made a difference to the MCL. All variables showed significant association with PCa death in univariate models. In multivariate models, incorporating PSA, T-stage, and Gleason score, only %+cores was a significant predictor of outcome, with a 10% increase in %+cores resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.07 (likelihood-ratio test P > Χ2 = 0.01). There were 120 patients where SG made a difference to the MCL and a total of 20 events in this group. Including SG, on univariate analysis the median MCL was 10 mm and HR was 1.16 (P = 0.007), not including SG, the median MCL was 6 mm and HR was 1.23 (P = 6.3 × 10-4 ). Inclusion or exclusion of SG made no significant difference to TCL as a predictor of outcome. CONCLUSION Cancer extent is a strong predictor of PCa death but only %+cores added to the multivariate model. Expressed as a fraction of NPC/total number of cores, this is the simplest method of assessment, which we favour over more complicated methods in nontargeted biopsies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel M Berney
- Centre for Cancer Biomarkers and BiotherapeuticsBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
- Department of Cellular PathologyBarts Health NHS Trust, The Royal London HospitalLondonUK
| | - Kier Finnegan
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and DiagnosisWolfson Institute of Population HealthQueen Mary University of LondonUK
| | - Kim Chu
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and DiagnosisWolfson Institute of Population HealthQueen Mary University of LondonUK
| | - Samson W Fine
- Department of PathologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkNYUSA
| | - Murali Varma
- Department of Cellular PathologyUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffWLSUK
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Biomarkers and BiotherapeuticsBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and DiagnosisWolfson Institute of Population HealthQueen Mary University of LondonUK
| | - Luis Beltran
- Department of Cellular PathologyBarts Health NHS Trust, The Royal London HospitalLondonUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
The Role of Perineural Invasion in Prostate Cancer and Its Prognostic Significance. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14174065. [PMID: 36077602 PMCID: PMC9454778 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Prostate cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers in men worldwide. Perineural invasion (PNI), the movement of cancer cells along nerves, is a commonly observed approach to tumor spread and is important in both research and clinical practice of prostate cancer. However, despite many studies reporting on molecules and pathways involved in PNI, understanding its clinical relevance remains insufficient. In this review, we aim to summarize the current knowledge of mechanisms and prognostic significance of PNI in prostate cancer, which may provide new perspectives for future studies and improved treatment. Abstract Perineural invasion (PNI) is a common indication of tumor metastasis that can be detected in multiple malignancies, including prostate cancer. In the development of PNI, tumor cells closely interact with the nerve components in the tumor microenvironment and create the perineural niche, which provides a supportive surrounding for their survival and invasion and benefits the nerve cells. Various transcription factors, cytokines, chemokines, and their related signaling pathways have been reported to be important in the progress of PNI. Nevertheless, the current understanding of the molecular mechanism of PNI is still very limited. Clinically, PNI is commonly associated with adverse clinicopathological parameters and poor outcomes for prostate cancer patients. However, whether PNI could act as an independent prognostic predictor remains controversial among studies due to inconsistent research aim and endpoint, sample type, statistical methods, and, most importantly, the definition and inclusion criteria. In this review, we provide a summary and comparison of the prognostic significance of PNI in prostate cancer based on existing literature and propose that a more standardized description of PNI would be helpful for a better understanding of its clinical relevance.
Collapse
|
4
|
Reis H, Skottky S, Hager T, Hadaschik B, Waue V, Zwönitzer R. [Structured reporting of prostate cancer-self-development of a digital solution for prostate biopsies]. PATHOLOGIE (HEIDELBERG, GERMANY) 2022; 43:94-100. [PMID: 36301350 DOI: 10.1007/s00292-022-01149-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The challenges in pathology and in structuring of data are increasing. Although considerable amounts of data are generated during the pathological diagnostic process, these data are often not available in a structured form and have to be extracted from the reports through a time-consuming and error-prone manual approach. However, the data are required for various internal and external purposes, such as for audits, tumor organ centers, reporting to cancer registries, different consortia, billing, various aspects within the organization, and for research. OBJECTIVES The aim of the work was the development of a digital system for the direct and high-quality acquisition of structured pathology data using the example of biopsy-based diagnostics of prostate carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS A solution was created in cooperation with the pathology laboratory information system (LIS) provider imassense GmbH (Berlin, Germany), whose LIS 'Informationssystem der digitalen Pathologie' (IS-P) is used at the Institute of Pathology at the University Hospital Essen. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION Over a period of about 1.5 years, a system that is capable of structured reporting according to local, national (S3 guidelines, German Cancer Society) and international (International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting [ICCR]) specifications was developed and subsequently used. The data are stored in readable databases and can easily be generated via IS‑P. Apart from the disadvantage of a highly specialized solution adapted to the LIS, the project also shows the feasibility in the local academic environment with the above-mentioned advantages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henning Reis
- Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Deutschland.
- Dr. Senckenbergisches Institut für Pathologie (SIP), Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Universität Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
| | - Silke Skottky
- Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Deutschland
| | - Thomas Hager
- Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Deutschland
- Institut für Pathologie, MVZ DIAKO Flensburg, Flensburg, Deutschland
| | - Boris Hadaschik
- Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Deutschland
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Detection of perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsies with deep neural networks. Virchows Arch 2022; 481:73-82. [PMID: 35449363 PMCID: PMC9226086 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-022-03326-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2022] [Revised: 03/25/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
The presence of perineural invasion (PNI) by carcinoma in prostate biopsies has been shown to be associated with poor prognosis. The assessment and quantification of PNI are, however, labor intensive. To aid pathologists in this task, we developed an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm based on deep neural networks. We collected, digitized, and pixel-wise annotated the PNI findings in each of the approximately 80,000 biopsy cores from the 7406 men who underwent biopsy in a screening trial between 2012 and 2014. In total, 485 biopsy cores showed PNI. We also digitized more than 10% (n = 8318) of the PNI negative biopsy cores. Digitized biopsies from a random selection of 80% of the men were used to build the AI algorithm, while 20% were used to evaluate its performance. For detecting PNI in prostate biopsy cores, the AI had an estimated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) based on 106 PNI positive cores and 1652 PNI negative cores in the independent test set. For a pre-specified operating point, this translates to sensitivity of 0.87 and specificity of 0.97. The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 0.67 and 0.99, respectively. The concordance of the AI with pathologists, measured by mean pairwise Cohen's kappa (0.74), was comparable to inter-pathologist concordance (0.68 to 0.75). The proposed algorithm detects PNI in prostate biopsies with acceptable performance. This could aid pathologists by reducing the number of biopsies that need to be assessed for PNI and by highlighting regions of diagnostic interest.
Collapse
|
6
|
Presence of corpora amylacea among prostate cancer cells: an unrecognised feature of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Pathology 2021; 53:574-578. [PMID: 34154844 DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2020.09.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2020] [Revised: 08/26/2020] [Accepted: 09/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Corpora amylacea (CA) is usually present in benign prostatic ducts and acini, and its presence is considered suggestive of negative or low-risk prostate cancer. The clinicopathological definition of CA among prostate cancer cells (CAPCCs)-described as CA entirely surrounded by invasive cancer cells-has not been discussed. As intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is a well-known adverse prognostic factor in prostate cancer, this study aimed to elucidate the relationship between CAPCC and IDC-P. We enrolled 366 patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies between 2012 and 2018 at Aichi Medical University Hospital. All surgical specimens were independently reviewed by two genitourinary pathologists. The median age of the patients was 68.5 years; the median serum prostate-specific antigen was 6.49 ng/mL. IDC-P was observed in 143 (39.1%) patients, while the presence of CAPCC was observed in 47 cases (12.8%). Patients with CAPCC were associated with more advanced clinical and pathological T stages, as well as Gleason scores, than those without CAPCC (p=0.018, p<0.001, p=0.036). Notably, the presence of CAPCC was significantly associated with the presence of IDC-P (39 cases) and a high Gleason score compared with the absence of CAPCC (12 cases) (p<0.001 and p=0.036, respectively). The presence of CAPCC is an adverse pathological feature, often closely related to IDC-P. Therefore, CAPCC may be a surrogate finding to detect IDC-P via haematoxylin and eosin staining.
Collapse
|
7
|
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Tsuzuki T, Olsson H, Ström P, Lindskog C, Häkkinen T, Kartasalo K, Eklund M, Ruusuvuori P. Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies. Virchows Arch 2021; 478:1109-1116. [PMID: 33534005 PMCID: PMC8203540 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03039-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Revised: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Numerous studies have shown a correlation between perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate biopsies and outcome. The reporting of PNI varies widely in the literature. While the interobserver variability of prostate cancer grading has been studied extensively, less is known regarding the reproducibility of PNI. A total of 212 biopsy cores from a population-based screening trial were included in this study (106 with and 106 without PNI according to the original pathology reports). The glass slides were scanned and circulated among four pathologists with a special interest in urological pathology for assessment of PNI. Discordant cases were stained by immunohistochemistry for S-100 protein. PNI was diagnosed by all four observers in 34.0% of cases, while 41.5% were considered to be negative for PNI. In 24.5% of cases, there was a disagreement between the observers. The kappa for interobserver variability was 0.67–0.75 (mean 0.73). The observations from one participant were compared with data from the original reports, and a kappa for intraobserver variability of 0.87 was achieved. Based on immunohistochemical findings among discordant cases, 88.6% had PNI while 11.4% did not. The most common diagnostic pitfall was the presence of bundles of stroma or smooth muscle. It was noted in a few cases that collagenous micronodules could be mistaken for a nerve. The distance between cancer and nerve was another cause of disagreement. Although the results suggest that the reproducibility of PNI may be greater than that of prostate cancer grading, there is still a need for improvement and standardization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lars Egevad
- Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Radiumhemmet P1:02, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Brett Delahunt
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Hemamali Samaratunga
- Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Toyonori Tsuzuki
- Department of Surgical Pathology, Aichi Medical University, School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Henrik Olsson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Peter Ström
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Cecilia Lindskog
- Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Tomi Häkkinen
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
- Tays Cancer Center, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Kimmo Kartasalo
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
| | - Martin Eklund
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Pekka Ruusuvuori
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
- Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Bostwick DG, Cheng L, Evans AJ, Gianduzzo T, Graefen M, Hugosson J, Kench JG, Leite KR, Oxley J, Sauter G, Srigley JR, Stattin P, Tsuzuki T, Yaxley J, Samaratunga H. Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future. BJU Int 2021; 127:165-168. [PMID: 33206437 PMCID: PMC7898629 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Lars Egevad
- Department of Oncology and PathologyKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
| | - Brett Delahunt
- Department of Pathology and Molecular MedicineWellington School of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversity of OtagoWellingtonNew Zealand
| | | | - Liang Cheng
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisINUSA
| | - Andrew J. Evans
- Laboratory Medicine ProgramUniversity Health NetworkTorontoONCanada
| | | | - Markus Graefen
- Martini‐Klinik Prostate Cancer CenterUniversity Medical Center Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Department of UrologyInstitute of Clinical SciencesSahlgrenska AcademyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
- Department of UrologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
| | - James G. Kench
- Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic OncologyRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital and Central Clinical SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Katia R.M. Leite
- Department of UrologyLaboratory of Medical ResearchUniversity of Sao Paulo Medical SchoolSao PauloBrazil
| | - Jon Oxley
- Department of Cellular PathologySouthmead HospitalBristolUK
| | - Guido Sauter
- Institute of PathologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
| | - John R. Srigley
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathobiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoONCanada
| | - Pär Stattin
- Department of Surgical SciencesUppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden
| | - Toyonori Tsuzuki
- Department of Surgical PathologySchool of MedicineAichi Medical UniversityNagoyaJapan
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lu M, Wu S, Wu CL. Standardization of reporting discontinuous tumor involvement in prostatic needle biopsy: a systematic review. Virchows Arch 2021; 478:383-391. [PMID: 33404850 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-020-03009-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2020] [Revised: 12/04/2020] [Accepted: 12/23/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Discontinuous tumor involvement (DTI) is a not uncommon finding in the tumor in prostate needle core biopsies undertaken for diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). The objective of this review is to establish a clear definition of DTI in order to provide a standardized method of measurement which reliably reflects pathologic features and disease progression following radical prostatectomy (RP). A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed up to March 2020 to identify studies of PCa patients which included needle biopsies containing DTI and matched subsequent RP treatment with or without follow-up information. The methodology and quality of reporting of DTI are reviewed, compared, and summarized. DTI is a frequent finding in diagnostic biopsy for PCa (up to 30%). Six studies were compared by methods of measurement used for predicting pathologic features and outcomes which are observed in subsequent RP. In most cases with DTI (> 90%), intervening benign tissue in the tumor core was less than 5 mm. DTI found in the biopsy was likely to be associated with a single, irregular tumor nodule going in and out of the plane of the section, but DTI was not associated with multiple small foci of the tumor. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) also demonstrated that about 75% of cases of DTI shared an IHC profile which supports the concept that DTI most likely comes from a homogeneous tumor nodule. Furthermore, DTI was associated with positive surgical margin (PSM) and bilateral tumor in RP specimens. Compared to additive measurement (with the subtraction of intervening benign tissue), linear measurement (including intervening benign tissue) of DTI was more accurately predictive of aggressive disease in the RP including higher pT stage, PSM, and greater actual extent of the tumor. However, the advantage of linear measurement was lost in cases where there was an upgrade from the biopsy to the RP which may result from undersampling. For cases with either very small tumor foci or very extensive cancer volume, no difference was observed in these two methods of measurement. DTI in core biopsies may represent undersampling of a larger irregular nodule but likely does not result from multifocality and is similarly unlikely to represent multiclonality. Linear measurement of DTI was more accurately predictive of post-RP pathologic findings and oncologic prognosis. This method should be applied for patient selection for AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Lu
- Department of Pathology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China
| | - Shulin Wu
- Department of Urology and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Chin-Lee Wu
- Department of Urology and Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
PUMA and NOXA Expression in Tumor-Associated Benign Prostatic Epithelial Cells Are Predictive of Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12113187. [PMID: 33138186 PMCID: PMC7692508 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12113187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2020] [Revised: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 10/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Given that treatment decisions in prostate cancer (PC) are often based on risk, there remains a need to find clinically relevant prognostic biomarkers to stratify PC patients. We evaluated PUMA and NOXA expression in benign and tumor regions of the prostate using immunofluorescence techniques and determined their prognostic significance in PC. METHODS PUMA and NOXA expression levels were quantified on six tissue microarrays (TMAs) generated from radical prostatectomy samples (n = 285). TMAs were constructed using two cores of benign tissue and two cores of tumor tissue from each patient. Association between biomarker expression and biochemical recurrence (BCR) at 3 years was established using log-rank (LR) and multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant association between BCR and extreme levels (low or high) of PUMA expression in benign epithelial cells (LR = 8.831, p = 0.003). Further analysis revealed a significant association between high NOXA expression in benign epithelial cells and BCR (LR = 14.854, p < 0.001). The combination of extreme PUMA and high NOXA expression identified patients with the highest risk of BCR (LR = 16.778, p < 0.001) in Kaplan-Meier and in a multivariate Cox regression analyses (HR: 2.935 (1.645-5.236), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The combination of PUMA and NOXA protein expression in benign epithelial cells was predictive of recurrence following radical prostatectomy and was independent of PSA at diagnosis, Gleason score and pathologic stage.
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
The histopathological diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma is challenged by the existence of numerous benign mimics. Most of these lesions have no clinical significance and many do not need to be reported. Their clinical relevance lies in the risk that they are misinterpreted as cancer. This review presents the histopathological features of benign mimics and discusses their distinction from cancer. The lesions that are most often misdiagnosed as cancer are atrophy and its variants, including simple atrophy, partial atrophy and post-atrophic hyperplasia. Benign proliferations are a group of lesions with crowded small glands with no or little nuclear atypia. The most problematic entity of this group is adenosis, which may have a more alarming architecture than some cancers. A diagnostic problem with atrophy and several of the benign proliferations is that the glands often have a discontinuous or absent basal cell layer. Hyperplastic and metaplastic lesions include basal cell hyperplasia. Basal cell hyperplasia may especially mimic prostate cancer with its small dark glands, variable nuclear atypia and a pseudoinfiltrative pattern, which may be present. The anatomical structure that most often causes diagnostic problems is the seminal vesicle. The mucosa of the seminal vesicle contains small acini, often with very pronounced nuclear atypia that may be misinterpreted as cancer. Pathologists need to be familiar with these mimics, as a false positive diagnosis of prostate cancer may lead to unnecessary radical treatment.
Collapse
|
12
|
Grosset AA, Dallaire F, Nguyen T, Birlea M, Wong J, Daoust F, Roy N, Kougioumoutzakis A, Azzi F, Aubertin K, Kadoury S, Latour M, Albadine R, Prendeville S, Boutros P, Fraser M, Bristow RG, van der Kwast T, Orain M, Brisson H, Benzerdjeb N, Hovington H, Bergeron A, Fradet Y, Têtu B, Saad F, Leblond F, Trudel D. Identification of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on tissue specimens using Raman micro-spectroscopy: A diagnostic accuracy case-control study with multicohort validation. PLoS Med 2020; 17:e1003281. [PMID: 32797086 PMCID: PMC7428053 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003281] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2019] [Accepted: 07/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PC) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in North American men. Pathologists are in critical need of accurate biomarkers to characterize PC, particularly to confirm the presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), an aggressive histopathological variant for which therapeutic options are now available. Our aim was to identify IDC-P with Raman micro-spectroscopy (RμS) and machine learning technology following a protocol suitable for routine clinical histopathology laboratories. METHODS AND FINDINGS We used RμS to differentiate IDC-P from PC, as well as PC and IDC-P from benign tissue on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded first-line radical prostatectomy specimens (embedded in tissue microarrays [TMAs]) from 483 patients treated in 3 Canadian institutions between 1993 and 2013. The main measures were the presence or absence of IDC-P and of PC, regardless of the clinical outcomes. The median age at radical prostatectomy was 62 years. Most of the specimens from the first cohort (Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) were of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (51%) while most of the specimens from the 2 other cohorts (University Health Network and Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval) were of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (51% and 52%, respectively). Most of the 483 patients were pT2 stage (44%-69%), and pT3a (22%-49%) was more frequent than pT3b (9%-12%). To investigate the prostate tissue of each patient, 2 consecutive sections of each TMA block were cut. The first section was transferred onto a glass slide to perform immunohistochemistry with H&E counterstaining for cell identification. The second section was placed on an aluminum slide, dewaxed, and then used to acquire an average of 7 Raman spectra per specimen (between 4 and 24 Raman spectra, 4 acquisitions/TMA core). Raman spectra of each cell type were then analyzed to retrieve tissue-specific molecular information and to generate classification models using machine learning technology. Models were trained and cross-validated using data from 1 institution. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87% ± 5%, 86% ± 6%, and 89% ± 8%, respectively, to differentiate PC from benign tissue, and 95% ± 2%, 96% ± 4%, and 94% ± 2%, respectively, to differentiate IDC-P from PC. The trained models were then tested on Raman spectra from 2 independent institutions, reaching accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities of 84% and 86%, 84% and 87%, and 81% and 82%, respectively, to diagnose PC, and of 85% and 91%, 85% and 88%, and 86% and 93%, respectively, for the identification of IDC-P. IDC-P could further be differentiated from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), a pre-malignant intraductal proliferation that can be mistaken as IDC-P, with accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities > 95% in both training and testing cohorts. As we used stringent criteria to diagnose IDC-P, the main limitation of our study is the exclusion of borderline, difficult-to-classify lesions from our datasets. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we developed classification models for the analysis of RμS data to differentiate IDC-P, PC, and benign tissue, including HGPIN. RμS could be a next-generation histopathological technique used to reinforce the identification of high-risk PC patients and lead to more precise diagnosis of IDC-P.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrée-Anne Grosset
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Pathology and Cellular Biology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Frédérick Dallaire
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Computer Engineering and Software Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Tien Nguyen
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Engineering Physics, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Mirela Birlea
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Jahg Wong
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - François Daoust
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Engineering Physics, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Noémi Roy
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - André Kougioumoutzakis
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Feryel Azzi
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Kelly Aubertin
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Samuel Kadoury
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Computer Engineering and Software Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Mathieu Latour
- Department of Pathology and Cellular Biology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Pathology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Roula Albadine
- Department of Pathology and Cellular Biology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Pathology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Susan Prendeville
- Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul Boutros
- Informatics & Biocomputing Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
- Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
- Institute for Precision Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
| | - Michael Fraser
- Informatics & Biocomputing Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rob G. Bristow
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Michèle Orain
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Hervé Brisson
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Nazim Benzerdjeb
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Hélène Hovington
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Alain Bergeron
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Surgery, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Yves Fradet
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Surgery, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Bernard Têtu
- Oncology Division, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Frédéric Leblond
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Engineering Physics, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Dominique Trudel
- Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Pathology and Cellular Biology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Pathology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
|
14
|
Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Billis A, Cheng L, Clouston D, Evans A, Furusato B, Kench J, Leite K, MacLennan G, Moch H, Pan CC, Rioux-Leclercq N, Ro J, Shanks J, Shen S, Tsuzuki T, Varma M, Wheeler T, Yaxley J, Egevad L. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation. Pathology 2019; 51:463-473. [PMID: 31279442 DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2019.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2019] [Revised: 05/30/2019] [Accepted: 05/31/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
The Gleason Grading system has been used for over 50 years to prognosticate and guide the treatment for patients with prostate cancer. At consensus conferences in 2005 and 2014 under the guidance of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), the system has undergone major modifications to reflect modern diagnostic and therapeutic practices. The 2014 consensus conference yielded recommendations regarding cribriform, mucinous, glomeruloid and intraductal patterns, the most significant of which was the removal of any cribriform pattern from Gleason grade 3. Furthermore, a Gleason score grouping system was endorsed which consisted of five grades where Gleason score 6 (3+3) was classified as grade 1 which better reflected the mostly indolent behaviour of these tumours. Another issue discussed at the meeting and subsequently endorsed was that in Gleason score 7 cases, the percentage pattern 4 should be recorded. This is especially important in situations where modern active surveillance protocols expand to include men with low volume pattern 4. While major progress was made at the conference, several issues were either not resolved or not discussed at all. Most of these items relate to details of assignment of Gleason score and ISUP grade in specific specimen types and grading scenarios. This detailed review looks at the 2014 ISUP conference results and subsequent literature from an international perspective and proposes several recommendations. The specific issues addressed are percentage pattern 4 in Gleason score 7 tumours, percentage patterns 4 and 5 or 4/5 in Gleason score 8-10 disease, minor (≤5%) high grade patterns when either 2 or 3 patterns are present, level of reporting (core, specimen, case), dealing with grade diversity among site (highest and composite scores) and reporting scores in radical prostatectomy specimens with multifocal disease. It is recognised that for many of these issues, a strong evidence base does not exist, and further research studies are required. The proposed recommendations mostly reflect consolidated expert opinion and they are classified as established if there was prior agreement by consensus and provisional if there was no previous agreement or if the item was not discussed at prior consensus conferences. For some items there are reporting options that reflect the local requirements and diverse practice models of the international urological pathology community. The proposed recommendations provide a framework for discussion at future consensus meetings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John R Srigley
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Brett Delahunt
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | | | - Athanase Billis
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas (Unicamp) Campinas, SP, Brazil
| | - Liang Cheng
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | - Andrew Evans
- University Health Network, Laboratory Medicine Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Bungo Furusato
- Department of Pathology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Cancer Genomics Unit, Clinical Genomics Center, Nagasaki University Hospital, Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - James Kench
- Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Katia Leite
- Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Gregory MacLennan
- Department of Pathology and Urology, Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Holger Moch
- University and University Hospital Zurich, Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Chin-Chen Pan
- Department of Pathology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | | | - Jae Ro
- Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jonathan Shanks
- Department of Histopathology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Steven Shen
- Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Toyonori Tsuzuki
- Department of Surgical Pathology, Aichi Medical University, School of Medicine, Nagakute, Japan
| | - Murali Varma
- Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Thomas Wheeler
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center and Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - John Yaxley
- Department of Medicine, University of Queensland, Wesley Urology Clinic, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
| | - Lars Egevad
- Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Yaxley J, Samaratunga H. Evolution, controversies and the future of prostate cancer grading. Pathol Int 2019; 69:55-66. [PMID: 30694570 DOI: 10.1111/pin.12761] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2018] [Accepted: 12/14/2018] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
Histological grading of prostate cancer is one of the most important tissue-based parameters for prediction of outcome and treatment response. Gleason grading remains the foundation of prostate cancer grading, but has undergone a series of changes in the past 30 years, often initiated by consensus conference decisions. This review summarizes the most important modifications that were introduced by the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revisions of Gleason grading and discusses the impact that these have had on current grading practices. A considerable inflation in Gleason scores has been observed, especially following the ISUP 2005 revision, and the effects of this are discussed. ISUP 2014 grading recommendations are described, including the reporting of ISUP grades 1-5. Controversial issues include methods for reporting of grades on needle biopsies, reporting of percent Gleason grades 4/5 and grading of cribriform and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Educational programs developed recently to promote standardization of grading are described and their results assessed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lars Egevad
- Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Brett Delahunt
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - John Yaxley
- Wesley Urology Clinic, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Hemamali Samaratunga
- Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|