Reporting intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a plea for greater standardization

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.

Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: To Grade or Not to Grade

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is a distinct tumor type characterized by an expansile growth of atypical glandular epithelial cells within pre-existing prostate glands and ducts and has significant implications on clinical outcomes and patient management. There is an agreement that isolated IDC-P should not be graded, and IDC-P should be reported with a comment on its clinical significance. However, whether IDC-P should be factored into Grade Group (GG) in the presence of concurrent prostate cancer (PCa) has been debated vigorously. The contradicting opinions were promulgated when the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) and the International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) published their recommendations for this issue. When IDC-P is present with PCa, the ISUP recommends incorporating it in the GG for the entire case, whereas the GUPS recommends excluding it from the final GG. Consequently, pathologists and clinicians are faced with the conundrum of conflicting recommendations. In this review article, the authors evaluate the magnitude of discrepant GG between the two grading methods, explore the rationales behind the differing views of the two urological societies, present the current reporting practices for IDC-P, and propose a provisional and pragmatic guide to alleviate the dilemma of which recommendation to follow.

Cribriform Lesions of the Prostate Gland

"Cribriform lesions of the prostate represent an important and often diagnostically challenging spectrum of prostate pathology. These lesions range from normal anatomical variation, benign proliferative lesions, premalignant, suspicious to frankly malignant and biologically aggressive entities. The concept of cribriform prostate adenocarcinoma (CrP4) and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), in particular, has evolved significantly in recent years with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the presence of these morphologies is important for clinical decision-making in prostate cancer management. Therefore, accurate recognition and reporting of CrP4 and IDC-P architecture are especially important. This review discusses a contemporary diagnostic approach to cribriform lesions of the prostate with a focus on their key morphologic features, differential diagnosis, underlying molecular alterations, clinical significance, and reporting recommendations."

WHO Classification of Tumours fifth edition: evolving issues in the classification, diagnosis, and prognostication of prostate cancer

The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems encompasses several updates to the classification and diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma as well as incorporating advancements in the assessment of its prognosis, including recent grading modifications. Some of the salient aspects include: (1) recognition that prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like carcinoma is not synonymous with a pattern of ductal carcinoma, but better classified as a subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma; (2) a specific section on treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma in view of the tight correlation between androgen deprivation therapy and the development of prostatic carcinoma with neuroendocrine morphology, and the emerging data on lineage plasticity; (3) a terminology change of basal cell carcinoma to "adenoid cystic (basal cell) cell carcinoma" given the presence of an underlying MYB::NFIB gene fusion in many cases; (4) discussion of the current issues in the grading of acinar adenocarcinoma and the prognostic significance of cribriform growth patterns; and (5) more detailed coverage of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P) reflecting our increased knowledge of this entity, while recommending the descriptive term atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) for lesions falling short of IDC-P but containing more atypia than typically seen in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN). Lesions previously regarded as cribriform patterns of HGPIN are now included in the AIP category. This review discusses these developments, summarising the existing literature, as well as the emerging morphological and molecular data that underpins the classification and prognostication of prostatic carcinoma.

Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: A Guide for the Practicing Pathologist

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate gland (IDCP) is characterized by an expansile, architecturally, and cytologically atypical proliferation of prostatic epithelial cells within preexisting prostatic ducts and acini. There has been a wider recognition of IDCP by practicing pathologists since its recognition as a separate category in the World Health Organization (WHO) 2016 classification of tumours of the prostate gland. However, there is also a lack of clarity regarding the diagnosis and reporting of IDCP, which has been compounded by divergent expert recommendations regarding the grading of invasive prostate cancers associated with an intraductal component. The International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) recommends that the IDCP component should be incorporated into the Gleason score, while the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) recommends excluding it when grading prostate cancer. This review seeks to clarify some of these issues and outline a pragmatic approach to reporting IDCP, particularly in needle biopsies. Diagnostic issues and terminology for lesions falling short of IDCP but exceeding that of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed. The management of patients whose prostate biopsies show only IDCP without an associated invasive component is controversial. Some experts recommend radical therapy, while others recommend prompt repeat biopsy. An alternative clinicopathologic approach that takes into consideration the extent, histomorphology, and location (with respect to a radiologic abnormality) of IDCP, as well as radiologic features, is outlined.

The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT.—

Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading.

OBJECTIVE.—

To update grading recommendations.

DATA SOURCES.—

Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace "tertiary grade pattern" in radical prostatectomy (RP) with "minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5)," and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) "atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)" is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

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.

The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma

Five years after the last prostatic carcinoma grading consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), accrual of new data and modification of clinical practice require an update of current pathologic grading guidelines. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of the ISUP consensus meeting for grading of prostatic carcinoma held in September 2019, in Nice, France. Topics brought to consensus included the following: (1) approaches to reporting of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 quantities, and minor/tertiary patterns, (2) an agreement to report the presence of invasive cribriform carcinoma, (3) an agreement to incorporate intraductal carcinoma into grading, and (4) individual versus aggregate grading of systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies. Finally, developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the grading of prostatic carcinoma and future research perspectives were discussed.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive form of invasive carcinoma and should be graded

Infiltration of the prostatic ducts by prostatic adenocarcinoma occurs relatively frequently, being most commonly associated with high grade disease. It is now recognised that intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP) has an associated poor prognosis and this is reflected in its histological, molecular and immunohistochemical features. The current recommendation of the World Health Organization is that IDCP not be taken into consideration when grading prostate adenocarcinoma. It is apparent that Gleason did not differentiate between IDCP and stromal invasive carcinoma when developing and validating his grading system, and recent studies suggest that the incorporation of IDCP grading into the overall grading of the specimen provides additional prognostic information.

Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress

Grading of prostate cancer has evolved substantially over time, not least because of major changes in diagnostic approach and concomitant shifts from late- to early-stage detection since the adoption of PSA testing from the late 1980s. After the conception of the architecture-based nine-tier Gleason grading system more than 50 years ago, several changes were made in order to increase its prognostic impact, to reduce interobserver variation and to improve concordance between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy grading. This eventually resulted in the current five-tier grading system, with a much more detailed description of the individual architectural patterns constituting the remaining three Gleason patterns (i.e. grades 3-5). Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. For instance, distinction of common grade 4 subpatterns such as ill-formed and fused glands from the grade 3 pattern is challenging, blurring the division between low-risk patients who could be eligible for deferred therapy and those who need curative therapy. The last few years have witnessed the publication of several studies on the prognostic impact of individual architectural subpatterns showing that, in particular, the cribriform pattern exceeded the prognostic impact of other grade 4 subpatterns. This review provides an overview of the changes in prostate cancer grading over time and provides a thorough description of the various Gleason subpatterns, the current evidence of their prognostic impact and areas of contention. Potential practical ways for improvements of the current grading system are also put forward.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a critical re-appraisal

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate gland (IDCP), which is now categorised as a distinct entity by WHO 2016, includes two biologically distinct diseases. IDCP associated with invasive carcinoma (IDCP-inv) generally represents a growth pattern of invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma while the rarely encountered pure IDCP is a precursor of prostate cancer. This review highlights issues that require further discussion and clarification. The diagnostic criterion “nuclear size at least 6 times normal” is ambiguous as “size” could refer to either nuclear area or diameter. If area, then this criterion could be re-defined as nuclear diameter at least three times normal as it is difficult to visually compare area of nuclei. It is also unclear whether IDCP could also include tumours with ductal morphology. There is no consensus whether pure IDCP in needle biopsies should be managed with re-biopsy or radical therapy. A pragmatic approach would be to recommend radical therapy only for extensive pure IDCP that is morphologically unequivocal for high-grade prostate cancer. Active surveillance is not appropriate when low-grade invasive cancer is associated with IDCP, as such patients usually have unsampled high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma. It is generally recommended that IDCP component of IDCP-inv should be included in tumour extent but not grade. However, there are good arguments in favour of grading IDCP associated with invasive cancer. All historical as well as contemporary Gleason outcome data are based on morphology and would have included an associated IDCP component in the tumour grade. WHO 2016 recommends that IDCP should not be graded, but it is unclear whether this applies to both pure IDCP and IDCP-inv.

Evolution, controversies and the future of prostate cancer grading

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.

Population-based study of the incidence and survival for intraductal carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

The degree to which intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) affects clinical course remains poorly understood owing to small sample sizes from single-center studies. We sought to determine prognostic factors and outcomes associated with IDC-P in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of RP during 2004 to 2013 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results to compare IDC-P with non-IDC-P. The effect of IDC-P on overall and disease-specific survival was assessed using Cox regression with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.6-7.0y; P = 0.01). Median prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis in IDC-P vs. non-IDC-P was similar (P = 0.23) at 6.2 (IQR: 4.6-13.0) vs. 6.1ng/ml (IQR: 4.6-9.8).

RESULTS

We identified 159,777 RP from 2004 to 2013, and 242 (0.002%) had IDC-P pathologic features. IDC-P was associated with a greater likelihood of extraprostatic stage, pT3/T4, 45.9% vs. 21.6% (P<0.001), higher grade, GS≥ 7, 79.3% vs. 62.7% (P<0.001), lymph node metastases, 5.8% vs. 2.4% (P<0.001), and positive surgical margins, 25.6% vs. 19.5% (P = 0.02). IDC-P was associated with a 3-fold increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality relative to non-IDC-P (hazard ratio = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.5-5.7; P<0.01). Limitations include retrospective design and potential underreporting of IDC-P that leads to underestimation of the true effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

The significance of IDC-P features has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization and it is associated with high-grade, extraprostatic features, and worse prostate cancer-specific mortality. Understanding its prognostic significance better guides adjuvant therapies and clinical trials.