Intraductal carcinoma of prostate reporting practice: a survey of expert European uropathologists

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.

Clinical Management of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has emerged as a distinct entity with significant clinical implications in prostate cancer (PCa) management. Despite historically being considered an extension of invasive PCa, IDC-P shows unique biological characteristics that challenge traditional diagnostic and therapeutic settings. This review explores the clinical management of IDC-P. While the diagnosis of IDC-P relies on specific morphological criteria, its detection remains challenging due to inter-observer variability. Emerging evidence underscores the association of IDC-P with aggressive disease and poor clinical outcomes across various PCa stages. However, standardized management guidelines for IDC-P are lacking. Recent studies suggest considering adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies in specific patient cohorts to improve outcomes and tailor treatment strategies based on the IDC-P status. However, the current level of evidence regarding this is low. Moving forward, a deeper understanding of the pathogenesis of IDC-P and its interaction with conventional PCa subtypes is crucial for refining risk stratification and therapeutic interventions.

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.

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.

Hidden clues in prostate cancer - Lessons learned from clinical and pre-clinical approaches on diagnosis and risk stratification

The heterogeneity of prostate cancer is evident at clinical, morphological and molecular levels. To aid clinical decision making, a three-tiered system for risk stratification is used to designate low-, intermediate-, and high-risk of disease progression. Intermediate-risk prostate cancers are the most frequently diagnosed, and even with common diagnostic features, can exhibit vastly different clinical progression. Thus, improved risk stratification methods are needed to better predict patient outcomes. Here, we provide an overview of the improvements in diagnosis/prognosis arising from advances in pathology reporting of prostate cancer, which can improve risk stratification, especially for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This review discusses updates to pathology reporting of morphological growth patterns, and proposes the utility of integrating prognostic biomarkers or innovative imaging techniques to enhance clinical decision-making. To complement clinical studies, experimental approaches using patient-derived tumors have highlighted important cellular and morphological features associated with aggressive disease that may impact treatment response. The intersection of urology, pathology and scientific disciplines is required to work towards a common goal of understanding disease pathogenesis, improving the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk disease and subsequently defining optimal treatment strategies using precision-based approaches.

Identification of Morphologic Criteria Associated with Biochemical Recurrence in Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer strongly associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, approximately 40% of men with IDC-P remain BCR-free five years after radical prostatectomy. In this retrospective multicenter study, we aimed to identify histologic criteria associated with BCR for IDC-P lesions. A total of 108 first-line radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed. In our test cohort (n = 39), presence of larger duct size (>573 µm in diameter), cells with irregular nuclear contours (CINC) (≥5 CINC in two distinct high-power fields), high mitotic score (>1.81 mitoses/mm2), blood vessels, and comedonecrosis were associated with early BCR (<18 months) (p < 0.05). In our validation cohort (n = 69), the presence of CINC or blood vessels was independently associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-4.96, p = 0.029). When combining the criteria, the presence of any CINC, blood vessels, high mitotic score, or comedonecrosis showed a stronger association with BCR (HR 2.74, 95% CI 1.21-6.19, p = 0.015). Our results suggest that IDC-P can be classified as low versus high-risk of BCR. The defined morphologic criteria can be easily assessed and should be integrated for clinical application following validation in larger cohorts.

Knowing what's growing: Why ductal and intraductal prostate cancer matter

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy, but only some tumors are lethal. Accurately identifying these tumors will improve clinical practice and instruct research. Aggressive cancers often have distinctive pathologies, including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and ductal adenocarcinoma. Here, we review the importance of these pathologies because they are often overlooked, especially in genomics and preclinical testing. Pathology, genomics, and patient-derived models show that IDC-P and ductal adenocarcinoma accompany multiple markers of poor prognosis. Consequently, "knowing what is growing" will help translate preclinical research to pinpoint and treat high-risk prostate cancer in the clinic.

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.

Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: Pathogenesis and Molecular Perspectives

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), a clinicopathological entity characterized by malignant prostatic epithelial cells growing within ducts and/or acini, has a distinct architectural pattern, cytological features, and biological behavior. Whereas most IDC-P tumors could be derived from adjacent high-grade invasive cancer via retrograde spreading of cancer cells along benign ducts and acini, a small subset of IDC-P may arise from the transformation and intraductal proliferation of precancerous cells induced by various oncogenic events. These isolated IDC-P tumors possess a distinct mutational profile and may function as a carcinoma in situ lesion with de novo intraductal outgrowth of malignant cells. Further molecular characterization of these two types of IDC-P and better understanding of the mechanisms underlying IDC-P formation and progression could be translated into valuable biomarkers for differential diagnosis and actionable targets for therapeutic interventions. PATIENT SUMMARY: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive type of prostate cancer associated with high risk for local recurrence and distant metastasis. In this review, we discussed pathogenesis, biomarkers, differential diagnoses, and therapeutic strategies for this tumor.

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.

Reporting Practices and Resource Utilization in the Era of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: A Survey of Genitourinary Subspecialists

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.

Isolated Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate in Prostatectomy Specimens: Report of 2 Cases and Review of the Literature

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCp) is a distinct neoplastic entity, and although recognized for some time, it was included for the first time in the histologic classification of prostate cancer in the 2016 publication of World Health Organization. IDCp represents an intraductal or intra-acinar proliferation of malignant cells, with preservation of the basal cell layer. Even though IDCp is usually accompanied by a high-grade invasive component, low-grade invasive carcinoma can rarely be seen adjacent to the lesion. Even rarer is the incidence of isolated IDCp in needle biopsies, while a few such cases have been reported in prostatectomy specimens. We report 2 cases with isolated IDCp without any invasive component. A review of the literature is performed including the diagnostic challenges of IDCp and its morphologic mimics, immunohistochemical markers, molecular aspects, and prognostic implications. Even though it is not yet clear whether IDCp represents an intraductal spread of invasive cancer or a precursor of invasive carcinoma, the existence of isolated IDCp reinforces the idea that, at least in some of the cases, IDCp is a precancerous lesion. Further molecular studies need to be performed in order to clarify its pathogenesis.

Evolution of prostate cancer histopathology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

During the last 15 years several updates in the Gleason grading have been made. With the help of pertinent research results pathologists have gained a better insight into the meanings of several prostate cancer (PCa) patterns and know better how to classify them in the Gleason grade system.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the last years PCa with cribriform architecture has be given much attention. Many data have also been published about the meaning of comedonecrosis and its relationship with Gleason pattern 4 and 5. The correlationship between comedonecrosis and intraductal PCa has also been highlighted in the recent literature. Intraductal PCa is one of the most described topics at the moment with implications to treatment such as radiation therapy. We also highlight several practical issues such as the differences of grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomies and describe the problematic of reporting a minor high-grade pattern.

SUMMARY

Many new and recent data have allowed to refine diagnosis in PCa and improve the patients's treatment. We show that comedonecrosis can be overgraded and insist on the implication with cribriform and intraducatal carcinomas. Furthermore, we describe the importance of these PCa types especially in the consideration of further treatment.

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.

Comedonecrosis Revisited: Strong Association With Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate

From the advent of the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer, cancer displaying intraluminal necrotic cells and/or karyorrhexis within cribriform/solid architecture, a phenomenon termed "comedonecrosis," has been assigned pattern 5. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) shows morphologic overlap with high-grade cribriform/solid adenocarcinoma architecturally and cytologically and may also show central necrosis, yet due to the presence of basal cells at the duct periphery is not currently assigned a grade in clinical practice. On the basis of observations from routine clinical cases, we hypothesized that comedonecrosis was more significantly associated with IDC-P than invasive disease. From a large series of mapped radical prostatectomy specimens (n=933), we identified 125 high-grade (≥Gleason score 4+3=7), high-volume tumors with available slides for review. All slides were examined for the presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis. Standard immunohistochemistry for basal cell markers was performed to detect basal cell labeling in these foci. In total, 19 of 125 (15%) cases showed some ducts with comedonecrosis-9 cases with 1 focus and 10 cases with ≥2 foci; in all, a total of 73 foci of true comedonecrosis were evaluated. Immunohistochemical stains revealed labeling for basal cell markers in a basal cell distribution for at least some comedonecrosis foci in 18 of 19 (95%) cases, 12 with IDC-P exclusively and 6 with a mix of IDC-P and invasive carcinoma comedonecrosis foci. These results suggest that comedonecrosis is strongly associated with IDC-P and hence, the routine assignment of pattern 5 to carcinoma exhibiting comedonecrosis should be reconsidered.

The impact of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on the site and timing of recurrence and cancer-specific survival

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effect of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens in the context of the site of recurrence, time to recurrence, and cancer-specific survival in two academic cohorts of locally, regionally, or distantly recurrent prostate cancer.

METHODS

Our cohort included men enrolled into two academic tissue repositories from 1993 to 2011, who were treated with first-line RP who later experienced local recurrence, regional recurrence, or distant metastasis (together termed clinical recurrence, CR). RP material was reviewed to identify IDC-P and to update grading to current standards. The primary endpoint was the initial location of CR. Secondary endpoints included time to CR and cancer-specific survival. Pearson's chi-square, Welch's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed for univariate analyses. Multinomial logistic regression was used for multivariate analyses. Cancer-specific survival was analyzed with the generalized Wilcoxon test and Cox regression.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients with CR were included in the analysis. IDC-P was present in 78.5% of patients from Center 1 and 70.0% from Center 2 (P = 0.547). IDC-P was independently associated with distant metastasis at initial CR (multivariate odds ratio = 6.27, P = 0.015). IDC-P status did not affect time to recurrence; median survival without recurrence was at 53 months for IDC-P(+) and at 50 months for IDC-P(-) (P = 0.441). Distant metastases at the initial CR event had a 36% reduction of cancer-specific survival compared to local recurrences (P = 0.007). Additionally, prostatic-bed radiotherapy (adjuvant or salvage for biochemical recurrence before distant metastasis) was associated with a 25% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared to no radiotherapy (P = 0.023). Similar reduction in cancer-specific mortality was observed in the subgroup of patients with distant metastasis and IDC-P when treated with radiotherapy (29%, P = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, presence of IDC-P was an independent factor for distant metastasis at initial CR, but did not have a significant impact on time to CR. Furthermore, metastatic patients showed statistically reduced cancer-specific mortality when treated with radiotherapy. This reduction in cancer-specific mortality was also identified in patients with IDC-P. Future large scale validation studies should take into account the presence of IDC-P and confirm its impact on disease progression.

Contemporary prostate biopsy reporting: insights from a survey of clinicians’ use of pathology data

Aim

To determine how clinicians use data in contemporary prostate biopsy reports.

Methods

A survey was circulated to members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the British Uro-oncology Group.

Results

Responses were received from 114 respondents (88 urologists, 26 oncologists). Ninety-seven (94%) use the number of positive cores from each side and 43 (42%) use the % number of positive cores. When determining the number and percentage of positive cores, 72 (71%) would not differentiate between targeted and non-targeted samples. If multiple Gleason Scores (GS) were included in a report, 77 (78%) would use the worst GS even if present in a core with very little tumour, 12% would use the global GS and 10% the GS in the core most involved by tumour. Fifty-five (55%) either never or rarely used perineural invasion for patient management.

Conclusions

The number of positive cores is an important parameter for patient management but may be difficult to determine in the laboratory due to core fragmentation so the biopsy taker must indicate the number of biopsies obtained. Multiple biopsies taken from a single site are often interpreted by clinicians as separate cores when determining the number of positive cores so pathologists should also report the number of sites positive. Clinicians have a non-uniform approach to the interpretation of multiple GS in prostate biopsy reports so we recommend that pathologists also include a single ‘bottom-line’ GS for each case to direct the clinician’s treatment decision.

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.

Systematic Review Links the Prevalence of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate to Prostate Cancer Risk Categories

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is associated with poor prognosis. While it is often regarded as a rare pathology, the prevalence of IDC-P remains unclear, with variable reports from small and disparate patient populations. To determine how common IDC-P is across the spectrum of prostate cancer, we conducted a systematic review correlating IDC-P prevalence with prostate cancer risk. Electronic searches of the OVID Medline, PubMed, and Scopus literature databases identified 38 patient cohorts in 24 articles, which were divided between four prostate cancer risk categories (low, moderate, high, and recurrent or metastatic disease). This review, which included radical prostatectomy and prostate biopsy specimens from >7000 patients, revealed an unexpectedly high rate of IDC-P. The IDC-P prevalence increased from 2.1% in low-risk patient cohorts to 23.1%, 36.7%, and 56.0% in moderate-risk, high-risk, and metastatic or recurrent disease risk categories, respectively (p<0.0001). IDC-P was also highly prevalent in tumours following androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy (60%). Contrary to common perceptions, this study demonstrates a strong association between IDC-P prevalence and aggressive prostate cancer, with a significantly higher frequency in high-risk disease. Greater recognition and systematic reporting of IDC-P may improve patient risk stratification.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate cancer can grow within ducts of the prostate, as well as in prostate tissue. By reviewing all reports describing prostate cancer growing within ducts, we found that it occurs more commonly than many scientists and clinicians appreciate, especially in aggressive prostate cancers. We conclude that there should be more awareness of this pattern of prostate cancer.