Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: Extreme Nuclear Size Is Not a Diagnostic Parameter.
Journal
The American journal of surgical pathology
ISSN: 1532-0979
Titre abrégé: Am J Surg Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7707904
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2021
01 11 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
16
7
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
15
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
High-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma involving duct/acinar structures is labeled intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP). As numerous studies have shown that IDCP is associated with high stage disease with a significant negative impact on cancer-specific survival, accurate diagnosis is crucial to ensure appropriate patient management. The definition of IDCP recommended by 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification suggests that cases of IDCP with micropapillary or loose cribriform architecture without comedonecrosis should have cells with ≥6× nuclear enlargement. It is unclear how this size criterion was derived and which of the parameters of nuclear size (nuclear diameter, nuclear surface area, or nuclear perimeter) it relates to. To evaluate the extent of nuclear enlargement in IDCP, we performed morphometric analyses relating to each of these parameters in 100 radical prostatectomy specimens. One hundred nuclei from foci of IDCP and 50 nuclei from foci of normal luminal epithelium were examined for each patient. Diagnosis of IDCP was based on cells with definite features of carcinoma present within duct/acinar structures. Comparing the means of each of the parameters between IDCP cells and benign luminal cells, there was a statistically significant enlargement in nuclear perimeter (P<0.0005), nuclear area (P<0.0005), and nuclear diameter (P<0.0005); however, the difference in mean nuclear size was limited to factors of 1.3×, 1.6×, and 1.3×, respectively. Three patients each had rare large nuclei (largest perimeter 45, 45, and 44 μm; maximum nuclear area 135, 136, and 136 μm2; and the largest diameter 18 µm in each). For these rare cells, the nuclear size difference, when compared with benign nuclei was; nuclear perimeter 2.0×, 2.1×, and 2.1×; nuclear area 3.6×, 3.8×, and 3.8×; and nuclear maximum diameter 3.0×, 2.5×, and 2.5×. The definition of nuclear enlargement of ≥6× was not reached in any of our cases, all of which clearly showed features of duct invasive carcinoma. In these cases, reliance on nuclear size criteria would have resulted in underdiagnosis of IDCP. This is of concern as failure to recognize IDCP, particularly in needle biopsies, could lead to delays in the timely treatment of aggressive high-grade prostate cancer, resulting in cancer progression and suboptimal patient oncological outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34265803
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001776
pii: 00000478-202111000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1527-1533Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies pertaining to this article.
Références
Young HH. Cancer of the prostate: a clinical, pathological and post-operative analysis of 111 cases. Ann Surg. 1909;50:1144–1233.
Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY. Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer. 1985;56:1566–1573.
Delahunt B, Egevad L, Samaratunga H, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is not a diagnostic entity. Histopathology. 2021;78:342–344.
McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:802–814.
Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Egevad L, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive form of invasive carcinoma and should be graded. Pathology. 2020;52:192–196.
Ohori M, Kattan M, Scardino PT, et al. Radical prostatectomy for carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:349–359.
Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, et al. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2014;74:680–687.
Varma M, Delahunt B, Egevad L, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a critical re-appraisal. Virchows Arch. 2019;474:525–534.
Zhang YC, Sun GL, Ma DL, et al. The presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is closely associated with poor prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2020;23:103–108.
Miura N, Mori K, Mostafaei H, et al. The prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;204:909–917.
Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:1528–1535.
Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2016.
Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2010;184:1328–1333.
Chen-Maxwell D, Prenderville S. Grading of prostate cancer: the impact of including intraductal carcinoma on the overall grade group assigned in diagnostic biopsies. Histopathology. 2020;77:503–507.
van Leenders GJLH, Kweldam CF, Hollemans E, et al. Improved prostate cancer grading by incorporation of invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma in the 2014 grade groups. Eur Urol. 2020;77:191–198.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–1242.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–252.
Franklin A, Delahunt B, Egevad L, et al. Prognostic significance of morphologic patterns of Gleason grade 5 prostatic adenocarcinoma diagnosed on needle biopsy. Pathology. 2021;53:199–204.
Kench J, Clouston D, Delahunt B, et al. Prostate Cancer (Radical Prostatectomy) Structured Reporting Protocol, 3rd ed. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia; 2018.
Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:6–15.
Kench JG, Judge M, Delahunt B, et al. Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Virchows Arch. 2019;475:263–277.
Varma M, Min W, Lee MW, et al. Morphologic criteria for the diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsy specimens. A study of 250 consecutive cases in a routine surgical pathology practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:554–561.
Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:98–107.
Totten RS, Heinemann MW, Hudson PB, et al. Microscopic differential diagnosis of latent carcinoma of prostate. AMA Arch Pathol. 1953;55:131–141.
McNeal JE, Bostwick DG. Intraductal dysplasia: a premalignant lesion of the prostate. Hum Pathol. 1986;17:64–71.
Merrimen JL, Jones G, Srigley JR. Is high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia still a risk factor for adenocarcinoma in the era of extended biopsy sampling? Pathology. 2010;42:325–329.
Akhavan A, Keith JD, Bastacky SI, et al. The proportion of cores with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on extended-pattern needle biopsy is significantly associated with prostate cancer on site-directed repeat biopsy. BJU Int. 2007;99:765–769.
Masoomian M, Downes MR, Sweet J, et al. Concordance of biopsy and prostatectomy diagnosis of intraductal and cribriform carcinoma in a prospectively collected data set. Histopathology. 2019;74:474–482.
Al-Hussain TO, Epstein JI, Al-Hussain TO, et al. Initial high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with carcinoma on subsequent prostate needle biopsy: findings at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1165–1167.
Miyai K, Divatia MK, Shen SS, et al. Clinicopathological analysis of intraductal proliferative lesions of prostate: intraductal carcinoma of prostate, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and atypical cribriform lesion. Hum Pathol. 2014;45:1572–1581.
Morais CL, Guedes LB, Hicks J, et al. ERG and PTEN status of isolated high-grade PIN occurring in cystoprostatectomy specimens without invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2016;55:117–125.
Lotan TL, Gumuskaya B, Rahimi H, et al. Cytoplasmic PTEN protein loss distinguishes intraductal carcinoma of the prostate from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:587–603.
Schneider TM, Osunkoya AO. ERG expression in intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: comparison with adjacent invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2014;27:1174–1178.
Morais CL, Han JS, Gordetsky J, et al. Utility of PTEN and ERG immunostaining for distinguishing high-grade PIN from intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:169–178.
Shah RB, Yoon J, Liu G, et al. Atypical intraductal proliferation and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on core needle biopsy: a comparative clinicopathological and molecular study with a proposal to expand the morphological spectrum of intraductal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2017;71:693–702.
Shah RB. Reply to ‘Low-grade intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: an idea whose time has not yet come’: evidence-based medicine suggests that the time is now. Histopathology. 2017;71:839–840.
Shah RB, Nguyen JK, Przybycin CG, et al. Atypical intraductal proliferation detected in prostate needle biopsy is a marker of unsampled intraductal carcinoma and other adverse pathological features: a prospective clinicopathological study of 62 cases with emphasis on pathological outcomes. Histopathology. 2019;75:346–353.
Girasole CR, Cookson MS, Putzi MJ, et al. Significance of atypical and suspicious small acinar proliferations, and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostate biopsy: implications for cancer detection and biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2006;175:929–933.