Stratification of Atypical Intraepithelial Prostatic Lesions Based on Basal Cell and Architectural Patterns

Contemporary Diagnostic Reporting for Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Morphologic Aspects, Molecular Correlates, and Management Perspectives

The diagnosis and reporting of prostatic adenocarcinoma have evolved from the classic framework promulgated by Dr Donald Gleason in the 1960s into a complex and nuanced system of grading and reporting that nonetheless retains the essence of his remarkable observations. The criteria for the "Gleason patterns" originally proposed have been continually refined by consensuses in the field, and Gleason scores have been stratified into a patient-friendly set of prognostically validated and widely adopted Grade Groups. One product of this successful grading approach has been the opportunity for pathologists to report diagnoses that signal carefully personalized management, placing the surgical pathologist's interpretation at the center of patient care. At one end of the continuum of disease aggressiveness, personalized diagnostic care means to sub-stratify patients with more indolent disease for active surveillance, while at the other end of the continuum, reporting histologic markers signaling aggression allows sub-stratification of clinically significant disease. Whether contemporary reporting parameters represent deeper nuances of more established ones (eg, new criteria and/or quantitation of Gleason patterns 4 and 5) or represent additional features reported alongside grade (intraductal carcinoma, cribriform patterns of carcinoma), assessment and grading have become more complex and demanding. Herein, we explore these newer reporting parameters, highlighting the state of knowledge regarding morphologic, molecular, and management aspects. Emphasis is made on the increasing value and stakes of histopathologists' interpretations and reporting into current clinical risk stratification and treatment guidelines.

Aberrant CREB1 activation in prostate cancer disrupts normal prostate luminal cell differentiation

The molecular mechanisms of luminal cell differentiation are not understood well enough to determine how differentiation goes awry during oncogenesis. Using RNA-Seq analysis, we discovered that CREB1 plays a central role in maintaining new luminal cell survival and that oncogenesis dramatically changes the CREB1-induced transcriptome. CREB1 is active in luminal cells, but not basal cells. We identified ING4 and its E3 ligase, JFK, as CREB1 transcriptional targets in luminal cells. During luminal cell differentiation, transient induction of ING4 expression is followed by a peak in CREB1 activity, while JFK increases concomitantly with CREB1 activation. Transient expression of ING4 is required for luminal cell induction; however, failure to properly down-regulate ING4 leads to luminal cell death. Consequently, blocking CREB1 increased ING4 expression, suppressed JFK, and led to luminal cell death. Thus, CREB1 is responsible for the suppression of ING4 required for luminal cell survival and maintenance. Oncogenic transformation by suppressing PTEN resulted in constitutive activation of CREB1. However, the tumor cells could no longer fully differentiate into luminal cells, failed to express ING4, and displayed a unique CREB1 transcriptome. Blocking CREB1 in tumorigenic cells suppressed tumor growth in vivo, rescued ING4 expression, and restored luminal cell formation, but ultimately induced luminal cell death. IHC of primary prostate tumors demonstrated a strong correlation between loss of ING4 and loss of PTEN. This is the first study to define a molecular mechanism whereby oncogenic loss of PTEN, leading to aberrant CREB1 activation, suppresses ING4 expression causing disruption of luminal cell differentiation.

Similarities and Differences in the 2019 ISUP and GUPS Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Grading: A Guide for Practicing Pathologists

Contemporary subspecialization of practice in prostate pathology has seen a transition to complex, nuanced reporting, where a growing number of histopathologic parameters may signal differences in patient management. In this context, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) both published proceedings papers on the grading of prostate cancer in 2019. Overall, the 2 prostate cancer grading manuscripts reached many of the same conclusions and recommendations. Yet, each consensus was conducted somewhat differently, and in a couple of key areas, each reached different conclusions and recommendations. Herein, sourced from the experience and viewpoints of members of both societies, we provide the practicing pathologist a summary of the shared recommendations, and of the discordances. It is anticipated that these 2 documents will inform future iterations of recommendations and guidelines for reporting prostate cancer by organizations such as the College of American Pathologists, the Royal College of Pathologists, and the European Society of Pathology, which will promote best practices for their respective constituents. Our goal is to provide the practicing pathologist a useful catalog of the main points of both, allowing each practitioner to make informed decisions and understand any divergent opinions as may arise between observers for individual cases.