Prostate cancer is the most frequent non-cutaneous malignancy in men in the United States. In the last few years, many recommendations have been made available from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference, 2016 World Health Organization blue book and 2018 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System. Here, we focus on four topics which are considered relevant on the basis of their common appearance in routine practice, clinical importance and ‘need to improve communication between pathology reports and clinicians’: prostate cancer classification, prostate cancer grading, prostate cancer staging, and current definition of clinically significant prostate cancer. Tissue biomarkers that can predict significant disease and/or upgrading and tissue-based genomics for the purpose of diagnosis and prognosis are mentioned briefly.
EpsteinJIEgevadLAminMB, 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 Pathol2016; 40(2): 244–252.
2.
MochHHumphreyPAUlbrightTM, et al. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Geneva: WHO Press, 2016.
3.
AminMBEdgeSBGreeneFL, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed.Cham: Springer, 2017.
4.
KhaniFEpsteinJI. Prostate biopsy specimens with Gleason 3+3=6 and intraductal carcinoma: radical prostatectomy findings and clinical outcomes. Am J Surg Pathol2015; 39(10): 1383–1389.
5.
McNealJEYemotoCE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol1996; 20(7): 802–814.
6.
CohenRJWheelerTMBonkhoffH, et al. A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med2007; 131(7): 1103–1109.
7.
GuoCCEpsteinJI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol2006; 19(12): 1528–1535.
8.
ShahRBZhouM. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: clinical significance, differential diagnosis and current concept of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Adv Anat Pathol2012; 19(4): 270–278.
9.
BonkhoffHWheelerTMvan der KwastTH, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: precursor or aggressive phenotype of prostate cancer?Prostate2013; 73(4): 442–448.
10.
RobinsonBDEpsteinJI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol2010; 184(4): 1328–1333.
11.
LotanTLGumuskayaBRahimiH, et al. Cytoplasmic PTEN protein loss distinguishes intraductal carcinoma of the prostate from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol2013; 26(4): 587–603.
12.
HanBSulemanKWangL, et al. ETS gene aberration in atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: implications for the distinction between intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol2010; 34: 478–485.
13.
HumphreyPA. Variants of acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate mimicking benign conditions. Mod Pathol2018; 31(S1): S64–S70.
14.
YaskivOCaoDHumphreyPA. Microcystic adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a variant of pseudohyperplastic and atrophic patterns. Am J Surg Pathol2010; 34(4): 556–561.
15.
AlharbiAMDe MarzoAMHicksJL, et al. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with focal pleomorphic giant cell features: a series of 30 cases. Am J Surg Pathol2018; 42(10): 1286–1296.
16.
ParwaniAVHerawiMEpsteinJI. Pleomorphic giant cell adenocarcinoma of the prostate: report of 6 cases. Am J Surg Pathol2006; 30(10): 1254–1259.
17.
Lopez-BeltranAEbleJNBostwickDG. Pleomorphic giant cell carcinoma of the prostate. Arch Pathol Lab Med2005; 129(5): 683–685.
18.
EvansAJHumphreyPABelaniJ, et al. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of prostate: a clinicopathologic summary of 7 cases of a rare manifestation of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol2006; 30(6): 684–693.
19.
FineSW. Neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate. Mod Pathol2018; 31(S1): S122–S132.
20.
GleasonDF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep1966; 50(3): 125–128.
21.
EpsteinJIAllsbrookWCAminMB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol2005; 29(9): 1228–1242.
22.
EpsteinJIAminMBReuterVE, et al. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol2017; 41(4): e1–e7.
23.
PierorazioPMWalshPCPartinAW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int2013; 111: 753–760.
24.
EpsteinJIZelefskyMJSjobergDD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol2016; 69(3): 428–435.
25.
MontironiRChengLCimadamoreA, et al. Prostate cancer grading: are we heading towards grade grouping version 2?Eur Urol2019; 75(1): 32–34.
KordanYChangSSSalemS, et al. Pathological stage T2 subgroups to predict biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. J Urol2009; 182(5): 2291–2295.
30.
ChunFKBrigantiALebeauT, et al. The 2002 AJCC pT2 substages confer no prognostic information on the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2006; 49: 273–278; discussion 278–279.
31.
EpsteinJI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol2011; 186(3): 790–797.
32.
Van der KwastTHAminMBBillisA, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol2011; 24(1): 16–25.
33.
EichelbergerLEChengL. Does pT2b prostate carcinoma exist? Critical appraisal of the 2002 TNM classification of prostate carcinoma. Cancer2004; 100(12): 2573–2576.
34.
EttelMKongMLeeP, et al. Modification of the pT2 substage classification in prostate adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol2016; 56: 57–63.
35.
PanerGPStadlerWMHanselDE, et al. Updates in the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging classification for urologic cancers. Eur Urol2018; 73(4): 560–569.
36.
BuyyounouskiMKChoykePLMcKenneyJK, et al. Prostate cancer – major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin2017; 67: 245–253.
37.
BhindiBKarnesRJRangelLJ, et al. Independent validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition prostate cancer staging classification. J Urol2017; 198(6): 1286–1294.
38.
HalabiSLinCYKellyWK, et al. Updated prognostic model for predicting overall survival in first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2014; 32(7): 671–677.
39.
HalabiSLinCYSmallEJ, et al. Prognostic model predicting metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer survival in men treated with second-line chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst2013; 105(22): 1729–1737.
40.
Van der KwastTHRoobolMJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol2013; 10(8): 473–482.
41.
MatosoAEpsteinJI. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology2019; 74(1): 135–145.
42.
EpsteinJIWalshPCCarmichaelM, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage t1c) prostate cancer. JAMA1994; 271(5): 368–374.
43.
NguyenJKMagi-GalluzziC. Unfavorable pathology, tissue biomarkers and genomic tests with clinical implications in prostate cancer management. Adv Anat Pathol2018; 25(5): 293–303.
44.
ChuaMLKLoWPintilieM, et al. A prostate cancer ‘Nimbosus’: genomic instability and SChLAP1 dysregulation underpin aggression of intraductal and cribriform subpathologies. Eur Urol2017; 72(5): 665–674.
45.
MehraRUdagerAMAhearnTU, et al. Overexpression of the long non-coding RNA SChLAP1 independently predicts lethal prostate cancer. Eur Urol2016; 70(4): 549–552.
46.
PrensnerJRZhaoSErhoN, et al. RNA biomarkers associated with metastatic progression in prostate cancer: a multi-institutional high-throughput analysis of SChLAP1. Lancet Oncol2014; 15: 1469–1480.
47.
HaffnerMCWeierCXuMM, et al. Molecular evidence that invasive adenocarcinoma can mimic prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and intraductal carcinoma through retrograde glandular colonization. J Pathol2016; 238(1): 31–41.
48.
TrockBJFedorHGurelB, et al. PTEN loss and chromosome 8 alterations in Gleason grade 3 prostate cancer cores predicts the presence of un-sampled grade 4 tumor: implications for active surveillance. Mod Pathol2016; 29(7): 764–771.
49.
Olkhov-MitselESiadatFKronK, et al. Distinct DNA methylation alterations are associated with cribriform architecture and intraductal carcinoma in Gleason pattern 4 prostate tumors. Oncol Lett2017; 14(1): 390–396.
50.
RisbridgerGPTaylorRACloustonD, et al. Patient-derived xenografts reveal that intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a prominent pathology in BRCA2 mutation carriers with prostate cancer and correlates with poor prognosis. Eur Urol2015; 67(3): 496–503.
51.
CuzickJSwansonGPFisherG, et al. Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol2011; 12(3): 245–255.
52.
ShoreNDKellaNMoranB, et al. Impact of the cell cycle progression test on physician and patient treatment selection for localized prostate cancer. J Urol2016; 195(3): 612–618.
53.
KleinEACooperbergMRMagi-GalluzziC, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol2014; 66: 550–560.
54.
PartinAWVan NesteLKleinEA, et al. Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol2014; 192(4): 1081–1087.
55.
StewartGDVan NesteLDelvenneP, et al. Clinical utility of an epigenetic assay to detect occult prostate cancer in histopathologically negative biopsies: results of the MATLOC study. J Urol2013; 189(3): 1110–1116.
56.
ErhoNCrisanAVergaraIA, et al. Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE2013; 8(6): e66855.
57.
KarnesRJBergstralhEJDavicioniE, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. J Urol2013; 190(6): 2047–2053.
58.
MontironiRCimadamoreAChengL, et al. Prostate cancer grading in 2018: limitations, implementations, cribriform morphology, and biological markers. Int J Biol Markers2018; 33(4): 331–334.
59.
KweldamCFvan LeendersGJvan der KwastT. Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress. Histopathology2019; 74(1): 146–160.
60.
TomMCNguyenJKLucianòR, et al. Impact of cribriform pattern and intraductal carcinoma on Gleason 7 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy. J Urol2019; 202(4): 710–716.
61.
AthanazioDACarrera SouzaV. Current topics on prostate and bladder pathology. Surg Exp Pathol2018; 1: 2.
