nach oben

Erschienen in:

16.05.2019 | Review and Perspectives

Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting

verfasst von: James G. Kench, Meagan Judge, Brett Delahunt, Peter A. Humphrey, Glen Kristiansen, Jon Oxley, Krishan Rasiah, Hiroyuki Takahashi, Kiril Trpkov, Murali Varma, Thomas M. Wheeler, Ming Zhou, John R. Srigley, Lars Egevad

Erschienen in: Virchows Archiv | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) was formed in 2011 to harmonise the datasets, protocols and checklists for pathological reporting of various cancers and develop internationally agreed upon, evidence-based datasets. A dataset for prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens was developed in 2011–2012 as part of a pilot project; however, it required substantial revision following the ISUP Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading in 2014, the publication of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs in 2016, and the 8th edition of the Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system in late 2016. This article presents the up-to-date, evidence-based ICCR dataset and associated commentary for reporting prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. PubMed and Google search engines were used to review the published literature on the subject, and the dataset was developed in line with the previously published ICCR framework for the development of cancer datasets. Substantial changes have been incorporated into the second edition of the ICCR prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy) dataset. These include revisions to prostate cancer grading, reporting of intraductal carcinoma of prostate and surgical margins, among others. Up-to-date cancer datasets underpin structured reporting and facilitate the production of consistent and accurate pathological data for patient care as well as comparisons between different cohorts and populations internationally.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30CrossRefPubMed

Cancer Research UK,(2014). Available at: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer. Accessed 14 Nov 2018

Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA (1998) The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 51(6):481–482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mathers M, Shrimankar J, Scott D, Charlton F, Griffith C, Angus B (2001) The use of a standard proforma in breast cancer reporting. J Clin Pathol 54(10):809–811CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Srigley JR, McGowan T, MacLean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S, Sawka C Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99(8):517–524

Gill AJ, Johns AL, Eckstein R, Samra JS, Kaufman A, Chang DK, Merrett ND, Cosman PH, Smith RC, Biankin AV, Kench JG, New South Wales Pancreatic Cancer Network (NSWPCN) (2009) Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens. Pathology 41(2):161–167CrossRefPubMed

Markel SF, Hirsch SD (1991) Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol 22(8):807–810CrossRefPubMed

Srigley J, Lankshear S, Brierley J, McGowan T, Divaris D, Yurcan M, Rossi R, Yardley T, King MJ, Ross J, Irish J, McLeod R, Sawka C (2013) Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators. J Oncol Pract 9(5):e255–e261CrossRefPubMed

Scolyer RA, Judge MJ, Evans A, Frishberg DP, Prieto VG, Thompson JF, Trotter MJ, Walsh MY, Walsh NMG, Ellis DW (2013) Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Am J Surg Pathol 37(12):1797–1814CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

McCluggage WG, Colgan T, Duggan M et al (2012) Data set for reporting of endometrial carcinomas: recommendations from the International cCollaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) between United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol 32(1):45–65CrossRef

11.

Kench J, Delahunt B, Griffiths DF et al (2013) Dataset for reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Histopathology 62(2):203–218CrossRefPubMed

12.

Jones KD, Churg A, Henderson DW, Hwang DM, Wyatt JM, Nicholson AG, Rice AJ, Washington MK, Butnor KJ Data set for reporting of lung carcinomas: recommendations from International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137(8):1054–1062

13.

International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Guidelines for the development of ICCR datasets. Available from: http://www.iccr-cancer.org/datasets/dataset-development. Accessed 1 Mar 2017

14.

McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA, Davidson B, Gilks CB, Hollema H, Ledermann JA, Matias-Guiu X, Mikami Y, Stewart CJ, Vang R, Hirschowitz L, International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Dataset for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Path 2015; 28(8):1101–1122

15.

Churg A, Attanoos R, Borczuk AC, Chirieac LR, Galateau-Sallé F, Gibbs A, Henderson D, Roggli V, Rusch V, Judge MJ, Srigley JR Dataset for reporting of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016; 140(10):1104–1110

16.

Nicholson AG, Detterbeck F, Marx A et al (2017) Dataset for reporting of hymic epithelial tumours: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Histopathology 7(4):522–538CrossRef

17.

Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R (2009) Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. 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(1):6–15

19.

Moch H, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM (eds) (2016) World Health Organization Classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of the urinary system and male genital organs. 4^th edition. IARC Press, Lyon

20.

Christensen WN, Steinberg G, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (1991) Prostatic duct adenocarcinoma. Findings at radical prostatectomy. Cancer 67(8):2118–2124CrossRefPubMed

21.

Rubenstein JH, Katin MJ, Mangano MM, Dauphin J, Salenius SA, Dosoretz DE, Blitzer PH Small cell anaplastic carcinoma of the prostate: seven new cases, review of the literature, and discussion of a therapeutic strategy. Am J Clin Oncol 1997; 20(4):376–380

22.

Dundore PA, Cheville JC, Nascimento AG, Farrow GM, Bostwick DG (1995) Carcinosarcoma of the prostate. Report of 21 cases. Cancer 76(6):1035–1042CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hansel DE, Epstein JI (2006) Sarcomatoid carcinoma of the prostate. A study of 42 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 30(10):1316–1321CrossRefPubMed

24.

Osunkoya AO, Epstein JI (2007) Primary mucin-producing urothelial-type adenocarcinoma of prostate: report of 15 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31(9):1323–1329CrossRefPubMed

25.

Curtis MW, Evans AJ, Srigley J (2005) Mucin-producing urothelial-type adenocarcinoma of prostate: report of two cases of a rare and diagnostically challenging entity. Mod Pathol 18(4):585–590CrossRefPubMed

26.

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefPubMed

27.

Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) 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 Pathol 41(4):e1–e7CrossRefPubMed

28.

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) 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 40(2):244–252PubMed

29.

McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1990) Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66(6):1225–1233CrossRefPubMed

30.

Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281(15):1395–1400CrossRefPubMed

31.

Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, Sundelin B, Nilsson B, Egevad L (2002) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 168(5):2006–2010CrossRefPubMed

32.

Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, Koch MO (2007) Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 110(9):1967–1972CrossRefPubMed

33.

Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC (1996) Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 20(3):286–292CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K, Ohori M, Scardino PT Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998; 29(8):856–862

35.

Sakr WA, Wheeler TM, Blute M, Bodo M, Calle-Rodrigue R, Henson DE, Mostofi FK, Seiffert J, Wojno K, Zincke H (1996) Staging and reporting of prostate cancer-sampling of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Cancer 78(2):366–368CrossRefPubMed

36.

Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, Troncoso P, Grignon DJ (1989) The prostatic capsule: does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 13(1):21–27CrossRefPubMed

37.

Chuang AY, Epstein JI (2008) Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 32(8):1201–1206CrossRefPubMed

38.

Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 24(1):26–38CrossRefPubMed

39.

Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L et al (2005) Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 216:34–63CrossRef

40.

Sung MT, Lin H, Koch MO, Davidson DD, Cheng L (2007) Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence: a new protocol for the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 31(2):311–318CrossRefPubMed

41.

Debras B, Guillonneau B, Bougaran J, Chambon E, Vallancien G (1998) Prognostic significance of seminal vesicle invasion on the radical prostatectomy specimen. Rationale for seminal vesicle biopsies. Eur Urol 33(3):271–277CrossRefPubMed

42.

Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R et al (1998) Prognostic indicators in patients with seminal vesicle involvement following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 160(3):802–806CrossRefPubMed

43.

Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Montironi R, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol 24(1):39–47CrossRefPubMed

44.

Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1999) Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(5):1499–1507CrossRefPubMed

45.

Partin AW, Piantadosi S, Sanda MG et al (1995) Selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence for experimental adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy. Urology 45(5):831–838CrossRefPubMed

46.

Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2003) Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probablity following radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer. J Urol 169(2):517–523CrossRefPubMed

47.

Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM (1993) The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 17(12):1252–1261CrossRefPubMed

48.

Epstein JI, Partin AW, Potter SR, Walsh PC (2000) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology 56(2):283–288CrossRefPubMed

49.

Potter SR, Epstein JI, Partin AW (2000) Seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer: prognostic significance and therapeutic implications. Rev Urol 2(3):190–195PubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Swanson GP, Goldman B, Tangen CM, Chin J, Messing E, Canby-Hagino E, Forman JD, Thompson IM, Crawford ED, Southwest Oncology Group 8794 (2008) The prognostic impact of seminal vesicle involvement found at prostatectomy and the effects of adjuvant radiation: data from southwest oncology group 8794. J Urol 180(6):2453–2457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA (2001) Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 91(8):1414–1422CrossRefPubMed

52.

Pierorazio PM, Epstein JI, Humphreys E, Han M, Walsh PC, Partin AW (2010) The significance of a positive bladder neck margin after radical prostatectomy: the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 designation is not warranted. J Urol 183(1):151–157CrossRefPubMed

53.

Zhou M, Reuther AM, Levin HS, Falzarano SM, Kodjoe E, Myles J, Klein E, Magi-Galluzzi C Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factor. Mod Pathol 2009; 22(3):385–392

54.

Dash A, Sanda MG, Yu M, Taylor JM, Fecko A, Rubin MA (2002) Prostate cancer involving the bladder neck: recurrence-free survival and implications for AJCC staging modification. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Urology 60(2):276–280CrossRefPubMed

55.

Yossepowitch O, Engelstein D, Konichezky M, Sella A, Livne PM, Baniel J (2000) Bladder neck involvement at radical prostatectomy: positive margins or advanced T4 disease? Urology 56(3):448–452CrossRefPubMed

56.

Poulos CK, Koch MO, Eble JN, Daggy JK, Cheng L (2004) Bladder neck invasion is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence. Cancer 101(7):1563–1568CrossRefPubMed

57.

Rodriguez-Covarrubias F, Larre S, Dahan M et al (2009) Prognostic significance of microscopic bladder neck invasion in prostate cancer. BJU Int 103(6):758–761CrossRefPubMed

58.

Edge SE, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) (2010) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 7th ed. Springer, New York

59.

Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL et al (eds) (2017) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Springer, New York

60.

Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2016) UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell

61.

Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C (eds) (2009) International Union against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

62.

Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL, Zincke H (1997) Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 50(5):733–739CrossRefPubMed

63.

Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al (2005) Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174(3):903–907CrossRefPubMed

64.

Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, Hohenfellner M (2008) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int 102(10):1413–1418PubMed

65.

Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, Finelli A, Jewett M, Zlotta A, Nesbitt M, Lockwood G, Trachtenberg J Impact of a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol 2010; 183(1):145–150

66.

Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A, Salomon L (2011) Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int 107(11):1748–1754CrossRefPubMed

67.

Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, Lin DW (2010) Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 183(6):2213–2218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JRS, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Epstein JI, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 24(1):48–57CrossRefPubMed

69.

Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS (2006) Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 175(1):140–145CrossRefPubMed

70.

Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E et al (2003) Variation among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 170(6 Pt 1):2292–2295CrossRefPubMed

71.

Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N, Vickers AJ, Slawin KM, Wheeler TM, Reuter VE, Scardino PT (2007) Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 70(5):965–969CrossRefPubMed

72.

Epstein JI, Sauvageot J (1997) Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol 157(1):241–243CrossRefPubMed

73.

Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Cheng L (2005) Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol 29(2):225–229CrossRefPubMed

74.

Epstein JI (1990) Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection. The significance of margins designated as negative, closely approaching, and positive. Am J Surg Pathol 14(7):626–632CrossRefPubMed

75.

Gupta R, O'Connell R, Haynes AM, Stricker PD, Barrett W, Turner JJ, Delprado W, Horvath LG, Kench JG (2015) Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostatic carcinoma: is its proximity to the surgical margin or Gleason score important. BJU Int 116(3):343–350CrossRefPubMed

76.

Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS (1999) Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 4(54):682–688CrossRef

77.

Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V et al (2015) Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 33(3):109.e107–109.e113CrossRef

78.

Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, Egevad L, Nilsson A, Carlsson S, Jonsson M, Adding C, Hosseini A, Steineck G, Wiklund P (2015) The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int 115(1):106–113CrossRefPubMed

79.

Magi-Galluzzi C, Sanderson HBS, Epstein JI (2003) Atypia in non-neoplastic prostate glands after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: duration of atypia and relation to type of radiotherapy. Am J Surg Pathol 27(2):206–212CrossRefPubMed

80.

Herr HW, Whitmore WF Jr (1982) Significance of prostatic biopsies after radiation therapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate 3(4):339–350CrossRefPubMed

81.

Grignon DJ, Sakr WA (1995) Histologic effects of radiation therapy and total androgen blockage on prostate cancer. Cancer 75:1837–1841CrossRef

82.

Vailancourt L, Ttu B, Fradet Y et al (1996) Effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (combined androgen blockade) on normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma. A randomized study. Am J Surg Pathol 20(1):86–93CrossRefPubMed

83.

Montironi R, Magi-Galluzzi C, Muzzonigro G, Prete E, Polito M, Fabris G (1994) Effects of combination endocrine treatment on normal prostate, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Pathol 47(10):906–913CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

84.

Civantos F, Marcial MA, Banks ER, Ho CK, Speights VO, Drew PA, Murphy WM, Soloway MS (1995) Pathology of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate carcinoma. A comparative study of 173 patients. Cancer 75(7):1634–1641CrossRefPubMed

85.

Bostwick DG, Meiers I (2007) Diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma after therapy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 131(3):360–371PubMed

86.

Guess HA, Gormley GJ, Stoner E, Oesterling JE (1996) The effect of finasteride on prostate specific antigen: review of available data. J Urol 155(1):3–9CrossRefPubMed

87.

Oesterling JE, Roy J, Agha A et al (1997) Biologic variability of prostate-specific antigen and its usefulness as a marker for prostate cancer: effects of finasteride. The Finasteride PSA Study Group. Urology 50(1):13–18CrossRefPubMed

88.

Marberger M, Freedland SJ, Andriole GL, Emberton M, Pettaway C, Montorsi F, Teloken C, Rittmaster RS, Somerville MC, Castro R (2012) Usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise as a marker of prostate cancer in men treated with dutasteride: lessons from the REDUCE study. BJU Int 109(8):1162–1169CrossRefPubMed

89.

Andriole GL, Humphrey P, Ray P et al (2004) Effect of the dual 5alpha-reductase inhibitor dutasteride on markers of tumor regression in prostate cancer. J Urol 172(3):915–919CrossRefPubMed

90.

Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC (1993) Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol 149(6):1478–1481CrossRefPubMed

91.

Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM, Ohori M (2004) Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol 172(2):508–511CrossRefPubMed

92.

van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LALM, Hulsbergen-vandeKaa CA (2008) Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic factor in high-risk localised prostate cancer. World J Urol 26(3):237–241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

93.

Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2010) Should pathologist routinely report prostate tumor volume? The prognostic value of tumor volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57(5):735–920CrossRef

94.

Dvorak T, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, Richie JP, D’Amico AV (2005) Maximal tumor diameter and the risk of PSA failure in men with specimen-confined prostate cancer. Urology 66(5):1024–1028CrossRefPubMed

95.

van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad L, Delahunt B, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group (2011) 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 Pathol 24(1):16–25CrossRefPubMed

96.

Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Walsh PC (1988) Tumor volume versus percentage of specimen involved by tumor correlated with progression in stage a prostatic cancer. J Urol 139(5):980–984CrossRefPubMed

97.

Partin AW, Epstein JI, Cho KR, Gittelsohn AM, Walsh PC (1989) Morphometric measurement of tumor volume and per cent of gland involvement as predictors of pathological stage in clinical stage B prostate cancer. J Urol 141(2):341–345CrossRefPubMed

98.

Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60(2):264–269CrossRefPubMed

99.

Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D'Amico AV (1989) Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Validation in a cohort of 434 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 111(5):641–644CrossRef

100.

Miyai K, Divatia MK, Shen SS, Miles BJ, Ayala AG, Ro JY (2014) Heterogeneous clinicopathological features of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison between “precursor-like” and “regular type” lesions. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7(5):2518–2526PubMedPubMedCentral

101.

Zhou M (2013) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: the whole story. Pathology 45(6):533–539CrossRefPubMed

102.

Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H, Rubin MA (2007) A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 131(7):1103–1109PubMed

103.

Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19(12):1528–1535CrossRefPubMed

104.

McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (1996) Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 20(7):802–814CrossRefPubMed

105.

Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, Saito AM, Sassa N, Ishida R, Hirabayashi H, Yoshino Y, Hattori R, Gotoh M (2014) Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 74(6):680–687CrossRefPubMed

106.

Kryvenko ON, Gupta NS, Virani N, Schultz D, Gomez J, Amin A, Lane Z, Epstein JI (2013) Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate with lymph node metastases: analysis of 184 radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(5):610–617CrossRefPubMed

107.

Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, Chan DY, Trock BJ, Walsh PC, Partin AW (2001) Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 58(5):746–751CrossRefPubMed

108.

Kumano M, Miyake H, Muramaki M, Kurahashi T, Takenaka A, Fujisawa M (2009) Adverse prognostic impact of capsular incision at radical prostatectomy for Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 41(3):581–586CrossRefPubMed

109.

Shuford MD, Cookson MS, Chang SS et al (2004) Adverse prognostic significance of capsular incision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 172(1):119–123CrossRefPubMed

110.

Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2007) The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 178(4 Pt. 1):1306–1310CrossRefPubMed

111.

Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes AM, Chatfield M, Stricker PD, Turner JJ, Delprado W, Henshall SM, Sutherland RL, Kench JG (2012) High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 109(12):1794–1800CrossRefPubMed

112.

Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS (1996) Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 48(1):80–90CrossRefPubMed

113.

Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS (2011) Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology 77(6):1409–1414CrossRefPubMed

114.

Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L (2007) The relationship between the extent of the surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 38(8):1207–1211CrossRefPubMed

115.

Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G, Zagaja G, Shalhav A, Eggener S (2009) Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol 182(1):139–144CrossRefPubMed

116.

van Oort IM, Bruins HM, Kiemeney LA, Knipscheer BC, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA (2010) The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology 56(4):464–471CrossRefPubMed

117.

Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2010) Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology 76(5):1206–1209CrossRefPubMed

118.

Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA (2010) The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy specimens is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 34(7):994–1001CrossRefPubMed

119.

Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2015) Importance of reporting the Gleason score at the positive surgical margin site: an analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol 195(2):337–342CrossRefPubMed

120.

Herman CM, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM (2000) Lymphovascular invasion as a predictor of disease progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 24(6):859–863CrossRefPubMed

121.

Cheng L, Jones TD, Lin H et al (2005) Lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 174(6):2181–2185CrossRefPubMed

122.

van den Ouden D, Hop WCJ, Kranse R, Schroder FH (1997) Tumour control according to pathological variables in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma of the prostate. Brit J Urol 79(2):203–211CrossRefPubMed

123.

van den Ouden D, Kranse R, Hop WC, van der Kwast TH, Schroder FH (1998) Microvascular invasion in prostate cancer: prognostic significance in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma. Urol Int 60(1):17–24CrossRefPubMed

124.

Loeb S, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JAV, Han M, Gashti SN, Yang XJ, Catalona WJ (2006) Lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens: prediction of adverse prognostic features and biochemical progression. Urology 68(1):99–103CrossRefPubMed

125.

Yee DS, Shariat SF, Lowrance WT, Maschino AC, Savage CJ, Cronin AM, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2011) Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 108(4):502–507CrossRefPubMed

126.

May M, Kaufmann O, Hammermann F, Siegsmund M (2007) Prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 99(3):539–544CrossRefPubMed

127.

Cheng L, Bergstralh EJ, Cheville JC, Slezak J, Corica FA, Zincke H, Blute ML, Bostwick DG Cancer volume of lymph node metastasis predicts progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22(12):1491–1500

128.

Boormans JL, Wildhagen MF, Bangma CH, Verhagen PC, van Leenders GJ Histopathological characteristics of lymph node metastases predict cancer-specific survival in node-positive prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 102(11):1589–1593

129.

Sgrignoli AR, Walsh PC, Steinberg GD, Steiner MS, Epstein JI (1994) Prognostic factors in men with stage D1 prostate cancer: identification of patients less likely to have prolonged survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 152(4):1077–1081CrossRefPubMed

130.

International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (2013–18). Histopathology Reporting Guides for Cancer Specimens. Available at: http://www.iccr-cancer.org/datasets. Accessed 28 Oct 2016

131.

Baras AS, Nelson JB, Han M, Parwani AV, Epstein JI (2017) The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups. Hum Pathol 63:27–32CrossRefPubMed

132.

Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner J, Horvath LG, Kench JG (2017) Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up. BJU Int 120(5):651–658CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting
verfasst von: James G. Kench
Meagan Judge
Brett Delahunt
Peter A. Humphrey
Glen Kristiansen
Jon Oxley
Krishan Rasiah
Hiroyuki Takahashi
Kiril Trpkov
Murali Varma
Thomas M. Wheeler
Ming Zhou
John R. Srigley
Lars Egevad
Publikationsdatum: 16.05.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Virchows Archiv / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02574-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Pathologie

01.04.2024 | Forensische Traumatologie | CME

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Pathologie

Theoretische Grundlagen von Explosionen und Explosionsverletzungen

Auswirkungen vorgeschalteter Laborprozesse auf die Digitalisierung histologischer Schnittpräparate

Knochenmarkhistologie bei Zytopenien

Herausforderungen der Automation bei der quantitativen Auswertung von Leberbiopsien

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Spindle cell liposarcoma with a TRIO-TERT fusion transcript

Spread through air spaces (STAS) is a predictor of poor outcome in atypical carcinoids of the lung

Incidental lymphoma in lymph node dissection for carcinoma in the abdominopelvic cavity: a single-institution experience

Disease heterogeneity in IgG4-related hypophysitis: report of two histopathologically proven cases and review of the literature

Thirteen cases of pulmonary dirofilariasis in a single institution in Okinawa Island

What to expect from the 2018 ASCO/CAP HER2 guideline in the reflex in situ hybridization test of immunohistochemically equivocal 2+ cases?

Neu im Fachgebiet Pathologie

Theoretische Grundlagen von Explosionen und Explosionsverletzungen

Auswirkungen vorgeschalteter Laborprozesse auf die Digitalisierung histologischer Schnittpräparate

Knochenmarkhistologie bei Zytopenien

Herausforderungen der Automation bei der quantitativen Auswertung von Leberbiopsien