Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Controlled for Cancer Grade and Tumor Volume Does Not Have an Independent Effect on Adverse Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes Compared to Usual Acinar Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

Rare histological prostate cancer subtypes: Cancer-specific and other-cause mortality

BACKGROUND

To assess cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) rates in patients with rare histological prostate cancer subtypes.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2020), we applied smoothed cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression (CRR) models.

RESULTS

Of 827,549 patients, 1510 (0.18%) harbored ductal, 952 (0.12%) neuroendocrine, 462 (0.06%) mucinous, and 95 (0.01%) signet ring cell carcinoma. In the localized stage, five-year CSM vs. OCM rates ranged from 2 vs. 10% in acinar and 3 vs. 8% in mucinous, to 55 vs. 19% in neuroendocrine carcinoma patients. In the locally advanced stage, five-year CSM vs. OCM rates ranged from 5 vs. 6% in acinar, to 14 vs. 16% in ductal, and to 71 vs. 15% in neuroendocrine carcinoma patients. In the metastatic stage, five-year CSM vs. OCM rates ranged from 49 vs. 15% in signet ring cell and 56 vs. 16% in mucinous, to 63 vs. 9% in ductal and 85 vs. 12% in neuroendocrine carcinoma. In multivariable CRR, localized neuroendocrine (HR 3.09), locally advanced neuroendocrine (HR 9.66), locally advanced ductal (HR 2.26), and finally metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma patients (HR 3.57; all p < 0.001) exhibited higher CSM rates relative to acinar adenocarcinoma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to acinar adenocarcinoma, patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma of all stages and locally advanced ductal carcinoma exhibit higher CSM rates. Conversely, CSM rates of mucinous and signet ring cell adenocarcinoma do not differ from those of acinar adenocarcinoma.

Evaluating the effect of histopathological parameters of prostate adenocarcinoma on prognosis in radical prostatectomy specimens

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, significant updates have been made regarding the classification and grading of prostate adenocarcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens, following decisions reached in international conferences and through impactful publications. These alterations are closely linked to patient prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

Observe the incidence of these changes and their impact on patient prognosis. Additionally, investigate the relationship between histopathological and clinical parameters to assist in multidisciplinary treatment planning.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary university hospital.

METHODS

Hematoxylin and eosin, along with immunohistochemistry stained sections, were reevaluated, and clinical information, including patient demographics, preoperative PSA levels, and patient follow-up were collected from patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our center.

SAMPLE SIZE

182 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

The study highlighted the negative prognostic effects of factors such as Gleason grade group, lymphovascular invasion, intraductal carcinoma, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, pathological T stage, and seminal vesicle invasion. These factors are important determinants of recurrence-free survival in prostate adenocarcinoma patients.

CONCLUSION

This study identified comedonecrosis and intraductal carcinoma as independent negative prognostic factors. A 3-mm cutoff for positive surgical margins was supported, while the current cutoff for extraprostatic extension may require reevaluation. The impact of cribriform pattern and ductal carcinoma appears to be influenced by the grade group. No independent relationship was found between the Gleason score/pattern on positive surgical margins or extraprostatic extension and prognosis. Further, large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are needed.

LIMITATIONS

The study is limited by the relatively small number of patients for certain parameters.

Radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma of the prostate: an analysis based on the Japanese radiation oncology study group survey

BACKGROUND

The clinical characteristics of prostate ductal carcinoma is still unclear, and treatment strategy has not yet been established due to its rarity. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter survey of radiation therapy for prostate ductal carcinoma in Japan.

METHOD

Data of patients with ductal carcinoma of the prostate treated with radiation therapy between 1996 and 2018 were extracted from the database of each facility.

RESULTS

Fifty-two treatment records of 41 patients were collected from nine institutions. The treatment purpose and situations were varied curative intent to palliation. Twenty-eight patients received curative treatments. The median follow-up period of these patients was 68 months. Androgen deprivation therapy was combined with radiation therapy in 26 cases (93%). X-ray and particle irradiation was used. Radiation dose range was 63-78 Gy; 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival and biochemical relapse-free survival were 87.0, 79.3 and 79.3%, respectively. One patient experienced Grade 3 radiation proctitis and one experienced Grade 3 radiation cystitis. There were no Grade 4 or worse adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Most patient received similar treatment with adenocarcinoma of prostate, and the clinical results were compatible. For more reliable evidence, further studies are required.

Variance of Tumor Grade at Radical Prostatectomy With Assessment of Each Tumor Nodule Versus Global Grading

CONTEXT.—

Multifocal prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy (RP) may be graded with assessment of each individual tumor nodule (TN) or global grading of all TNs in aggregate.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess case-level grade variability between these 2 grading approaches.

DESIGN.—

We reviewed 776 RPs with multifocal prostate cancer with 2 or more separate TNs of different Grade Groups (GGs). Two separate grades were assigned to each RP: one based on the TN with the highest grade and a global grade based on the Gleason pattern volumes for all TNs. We then compared the results of these 2 methods.

RESULTS.—

The case-level grade changed by 1 or more GGs between the 2 grading methods in 35% (132 of 374) of GG3 through GG5 cases. Twelve percent (37 of 309) of GG2 cases with Gleason pattern 4 more than 5% based on individual TN grading decreased their Gleason pattern 4 to less than 5% based on the global approach. Minor tertiary pattern 5 (Gleason pattern 5 <5%) was observed in 6.8% (11 of 161) of GG4 (Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8) and GG5 cases with global grading. The risk of grade discrepancy between the 2 methods was associated with the highest-grade TN volume (inverse relationship), patient age, and number of TNs (P < .001, P = .003, and P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS.—

The global grading approach resulted in a lower grade in 35% of GG3 through GG5 cases compared with grading based on the highest-grade TN. Two significant risk factors for this discrepancy with a global grading approach occur when the highest-grade TN has a relatively small tumor volume and with the higher number of TNs per RP. The observed grade variability between the 2 grading schemes most likely limits the interchangeability of post-RP multi-institutional databases if those institutions use different grading approaches.

Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Controlled for Tumor Grade, Stage, and Margin Status Does Not Independently Influence the Likelihood of Biochemical Recurrence in Localized Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT.—

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) has historically been considered to be an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE.—

To investigate if PDA is independently associated with worse biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival after radical prostatectomy.

DESIGN.—

A review of 1584 radical prostatectomies was performed to grade, stage, and assess margin status in each tumor nodule. Radical prostatectomies with localized PDA (ie, those lacking metastasis) in the tumor nodule with the highest grade and stage and worst margin status were matched with prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma according to grade, stage, and margin status. The effect of PDA on BCR was assessed by multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS.—

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma was present in 171 cases. We excluded 24 cases because of lymph node metastasis (n = 13), PDA not in the highest-grade tumor nodule (n = 9), and positive surgical margin in a lower-grade tumor nodule (n = 2). The remaining 147 cases included 26 Grade Group (GG) 2, 44 GG3, 6 GG4, and 71 GG5 cancers. Seventy-six cases had extraprostatic extension, 33 had seminal vesicle invasion, and 65 had positive margins. Follow-up was available for 113 PDA and 109 prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma cases. Prostate-specific antigen density (odds ratio, 3.7; P = .001), cancer grade (odds ratio, 3.3-4.3; P = .02), positive surgical margin (odds ratio, 1.7; P = .02), and tumor volume (odds ratio, 1.3; P = .02) were associated with BCR in multivariable analysis. Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma, its percentage, intraductal carcinoma, and cribriform Gleason pattern 4 were not significant independent predictors of BCR.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Advanced locoregional stage, higher tumor grade, and positive surgical margin status rather than the mere presence of PDA are more predictive of worse BCR-free survival outcomes following radical prostatectomy in men with a component of PDA.

Anterior or Posterior Prostate Cancer Tumor Nodule Location Predicts Likelihood of Certain Adverse Outcomes at Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT.—

Effect of tumor nodule (TN) location in the prostate on adverse radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes is not well studied in contemporary cohort.

OBJECTIVE.—

To investigate the significance of TN location with respect to extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SV+), and positive margin status (SM+) in 1388 RPs.

DESIGN.—

Each TN at RP was independently graded, staged, and volumetrically assessed. TNs with at least 80% of their volume occupying either the anterior or posterior part of the prostate were categorized accordingly and included in our study, while all other TNs were excluded.

RESULTS.—

A total of 3570 separate TNs (median = 3 per RP; range = 1-7 per RP) were scored. There were 1320 of 3570 (37%) anterior TNs and 2250 of 3570 (63%) posterior TNs. Posterior TNs were more likely to be higher grade, and exhibit EPE (18% versus 9.4%) and SV+ (4% versus 0.15%), all P < .001. Anterior TNs with EPE were more likely to exhibit SM+ than posterior TNs with EPE (62% versus 30.8%, P < .001). TN location, grade, and volume were significant factors associated with adverse RP outcomes in our univariable analysis. When we controlled for grade and tumor volume in a multivariable analysis using anterior TN location as a reference, posterior TN location was an independent predictor of EPE and SV+ and was less likely to be associated with SM+ (odds ratio = 3.1, 81.5, and 0.7, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS.—

These associations may be useful in preoperative surgical planning, particularly with respect to improving radiographic analysis of prostate cancer.

Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and tumor volume predict adverse pathological stage and margin status at radical prostatectomy in grade Group 2 and grade Group 3 prostate cancers

BACKGROUND

Increasing percentages of Gleason pattern 4 (GP4%) in radical prostatectomy (RP) correlate with an increased likelihood of nonorgan-confined disease and earlier biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, there are no detailed RP studies assessing the impact of GP4% and corresponding tumor volume (TV) on extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle (SV) invasion (SV+), and positive surgical margin (SM) status (SM+).

METHODS

In 1301 consecutive RPs, we analyzed each tumor nodule (TN) for TV, Grade Group (GG), presence of focal versus nonfocal EPE, SV+ , and SM+. Using GG1 (GP4% = 0) TNs as a reference, we recorded GP4% for all GG2 or GG3 TNs. We performed a multivariable analysis (MVA) using a mixed effects logistic regression that tested significant variables for risk of EPE, SV+, and SM+, as well as a multinomial logistic regression model that tested significant variables for risks of nonorgan-confined disease (pT2+, pT3a, and pT3b) versus organ-confined disease (pT2).

RESULTS

We identified 3231 discrete TNs ranging from 1 to 7 (median: 2.5) per RP. These included GG1 (n = 2115), GG2 (n = 818), GG3 (n = 274), and GG4 (n = 24) TNs. Increasing GP4% weakly paralleled increasing TV (tau = 0.07, p < .001). In MVA, increasing GP4% and TV predicted a greater likelihood of EPE (odds ratio [OR]: 1.03 and 4.41), SV+ (OR: 1.03 and 3.83), and SM+ (1.01, p = .01 and 2.83), all p < .001. Our multinomial logistic regression model demonstrated an association between GP4% and the risk of EPE (i.e., pT3a and pT3b disease), as well as an association between TV and risk of upstaging (all p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both GP4% and TV are independent predictors of adverse pathological stage and margin status at RP. However, the risks for adverse outcomes associated with GP4% are marginal, while those for TV are strong. The prognostic significance of GP4% on BCR-free survival has not been studied controlling for TV and other adverse RP findings. Whether adverse pathological stage and margin status associated with larger TV could decrease BCR-free survival to a greater extent than increasing RP GP4% remains to be studied.

Optimizing the diagnosis and management of ductal prostate cancer

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is the most common variant histological subtype of prostate carcinoma and has an aggressive clinical course. DAC is usually characterized and treated as high-risk prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC). However, DAC has a different biology to that of acinar disease, which often poses a challenge for both diagnosis and management. DAC can be difficult to identify using conventional diagnostic modalities such as serum PSA levels and multiparametric MRI, and the optimal management for localized DAC is unknown owing to the rarity of the disease. Following definitive therapy for localized disease with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, the majority of DACs recur with visceral metastases at low PSA levels. Various systemic therapies that have been shown to be effective in high-risk PAC have limited use in treating DAC. Although current understanding of the biology of DAC is limited, genomic analyses have provided insights into the pathology behind its aggressive behaviour and potential future therapeutic targets.

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma variant predicts worse pathological and oncological outcomes: Insight from over 1000 consecutive patients from a large prospective uro-oncology registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) independently predicts poorer pathological and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Utilizing a large prospective uro-oncology registry, clinicopathological parameters of 1027 consecutive patients who underwent RP (2008-2017) were recorded. Oncological outcomes were determined by failure to achieve unrecordable PSA postoperatively and biochemical failure (BCF).

RESULTS

PDA was present in 79 (7.7%) patients, whereas 948 (92.3%) patients had conventional prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (PAA). Patients with PDA were older (mean 64.4 vs. 62.8-years old; p = .045), had higher PSA at diagnosis (mean 12.53 vs. 10.80 ng/ml; p = .034), and a higher percentage of positive biopsy cores (mean 39.34 vs. 30.53%; p = .006). Compared to PAA, PDA exhibited a more aggressive tumor biology: (1) Grade groups 4 or 5 (26.6 vs. 9.4%, p < .001), (2) tumor multifocality (89.9 vs. 83.6%; p = .049), and (3) tumor size (mean 2.97 vs. 2.00 cm; p < .001). On multivariate analysis, PDA was independently associated with locally advanced disease (p = .002, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.786, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.473-5.263), with a trend towards positive surgical margins (p = .055) and nodal involvement (p = .061). Translating the poorer pathological features to oncological outcomes, presence of PDA independently predicted less likelihood of achieving unrecordable PSA (p = .019, HR: 2.368, 95% CI: 1.152-4.868, and higher BCF (p = .028, HR: 1.918, 95% CI: 1.074-3.423). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that a higher ductal component greater than 15% proportionally predicted worse oncological outcomes, with a shorter time to BCF of 14.3 months compared to 19.8 months in patients with ductal component lesser than 15% (p = .040, HR: 2.660, 95% CI: 1.046-6.757).

CONCLUSION

PDA is independently associated with adverse pathological and oncological outcomes after RP. A higher proportion of PDA supports a higher BCF rate with a shorter time interval. An aggressive extirpative approach with close monitoring of postoperative serum PSA levels is warranted for these patients.

Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, presentation, prognosis, and management

Context

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is relatively rare, but is nonetheless the second most common subtype of prostate cancer. First described in 1967, opinion is still divided regarding its biology, prognosis, and outcome.

Objectives

To systematically interrogate the literature to clarify the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, progression, and survival statistics of DAC.

Materials and methods

We conducted a literature search of five medical databases from inception to May 04 2020 according to PRISMA criteria using search terms "prostate ductal adenocarcinoma" OR "endometriod adenocarcinoma of prostate" and variations of each.

Results

Some 114 studies were eligible for inclusion, presenting 2 907 170 prostate cancer cases, of which 5911 were DAC. [Correction added on 16 January 2021 after the first online publication: the preceding statement has been corrected in this current version.] DAC accounts for 0.17% of prostate cancer on meta-analysis (range 0.0837%-13.4%). The majority of DAC cases were admixed with predominant acinar adenocarcinoma (AAC). Median Prostate Specific Antigen at diagnosis ranged from 4.2 to 9.6 ng/mL in the case series.DAC was more likely to present as T3 (RR1.71; 95%CI 1.53-1.91) and T4 (RR7.56; 95%CI 5.19-11.01) stages, with far higher likelihood of metastatic disease (RR4.62; 95%CI 3.84-5.56; all P-values < .0001), compared to AAC. Common first treatments included surgery (radical prostatectomy (RP) or cystoprostatectomy for select cases) or radiotherapy (RT) for localized disease, and hormonal or chemo-therapy for metastatic disease. Few studies compared RP and RT modalities, and those that did present mixed findings, although cancer-specific survival rates seem worse after RP.Biochemical recurrence rates were increased with DAC compared to AAC. Additionally, DAC metastasized to unusual sites, including penile and peritoneal metastases. Where compared, all studies reported worse survival for DAC compared to AAC.

Conclusion

When drawing conclusions about DAC it is important to note the heterogenous nature of the data. DAC is often diagnosed incidentally post-treatment, perhaps due to lack of a single, universally applied histopathological definition. As such, DAC is likely underreported in clinical practice and the literature. Poorer prognosis and outcomes for DAC compared to AAC merit further research into genetic composition, evolution, diagnosis, and treatment of this surprisingly common prostate cancer sub-type.

Patient summary

Ductal prostate cancer is a rare but important form of prostate cancer. This review demonstrates that it tends to be more serious at detection and more likely to spread to unusual parts of the body. Overall survival is worse with this type of prostate cancer and urologists need to be aware of the presence of ductal prostate cancer to alter management decisions and follow-up.