medigraphic.com
Patología Revista Latinoamericana

2008, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Patol Rev Latinoam 2008; 46 (3)

A proposal for handling, diagnostic and reporting prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens

Padilla RAL

Language: Spanish
References: 79
Page: 248-262
PDF size: 903.05 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The wide diffusion of the screening methods for prostate cancer as the prostatic specific antigen detection in addition to the transrectal ultrasound and digital rectal examination, has considerably modified the clinical presentation of the prostate cancer in the last years. Hence Pathologists are facing more frequently to radical prostatectomy specimens in which not always a macroscopic tumor is evident. The correct report of the histopathological findings allow to predict individual patient outcome after surgery as well as to select if a patient is prone to receive adjuvant therapy. Being the multidisciplinary approach of the patient the gold standard in new medicine, at the same time as the treatment options for a same disease are being standardized, it’s crucial for Pathologists to uniform their manner of handling and reporting in order to establish a narrow correlation with the rest of the team work (Urologists, Oncologists, etc.). The purpose of this work is to provide the general lineaments for the accurate handling of prostatectomy specimens including sampling and reporting the findings as well as to analyze their prognostic value.


REFERENCES

  1. Mazzucchelli R, Santinelli A, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Montironi R. Evaluation of prognostic factors in radical prostatectomy specimens with cancer. Urol Int 2002;68(4):209-15.

  2. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 1999;49(1):33-64.

  3. Partin AW, Coffey DS. The molecular biology, endocrinology, and physiology of the prostate and seminal vesicles. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, et al. eds. Campbell’s Urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders 2002;pp:1237-96.

  4. McNeal JE. Normal and pathologic anatomy of prostate. Urology 1981;17[Suppl 3]:11-16.

  5. Hoedemaeker RF, Ruijter ETG, van der Kwast TH, Ruizeveld-de Winter JA, van der Kaa CA. Processing radical prostatectomy specimens: a comprehensive and standardized protocol. J Urol Pathol 1998;9:211-22.

  6. Schmid HP, McNeal JE. An abbreviated standard procedure for accurate tumor volume estimation in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16(2):184-91.

  7. Cohen MB, Soloway MS, Murphy WM.Sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. How much is adequate? Am J Clinical Pathol 1994;101(3):250-2.

  8. Bova GS, Fox WM, Epstein JI. Methods of radical prostatectomy specimen processing: a novel technique for harvesting fresh prostate cancer tissue and review of processing techniques. Mod Pathol 1993;6(2):201-7.

  9. Walton TJ, McCulloch TA, Rees RC,Bishop MC. Obtaining fresh prostate cancer tissue for research: a novel biopsy needle and sampling technique for radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2005;64(4):382-6.

  10. Furman J, Murphy WM, Rice L, Drew PA, Narayan P. Prostatectomy tissue for research: balancing patient care and discovery. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;110(1):4-9.

  11. Wheeler TM, Lebovitz RM. Fresh tissue harvest for research from prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 1994;25(5):274-9.

  12. Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Kwast T.Morphological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. A protocol with clinical relevance. Virchows Arch 2003;442(3):211-7.

  13. Bostwick DG, Montironi R. Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: therapeutic and prognostic importance. Virchows Arch 1997;430(1):1-6.

  14. Epstein JI. The evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. Therapeutic and prognostic implications. Pathol Annu 1991:26(Pt 1):159-210.

  15. Srigley JR. Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130(3):303-17.

  16. Srigley JR, Amin MB, Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130(7):936-46.

  17. Ventura L, De Vito M, Leocata P,Ventura T. An original protocol for standardized histopathology reporting of prostate carcinoma. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2003;75(4):208-13.

  18. Montironi R, van der Kwast T, Boccon-Gibod L, Bono AV. Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 2003;44(6):626- 36.

  19. Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R, Prezioso D, Bono AV, Ferrari P, et al. Surgical pathology examination of radical prostatectomy specimens. Updated protocol based on the Italian TAP study. Anticancer Res 2001;21(5):3599- 607.

  20. Hollenbeck BK, Bassily N, Wei JT,Montie JE, Hayasaka S, et al. Whole mounted radical prostatectomy specimens do not increase detection of adverse pathological features. J Urol 2000;164(5):1583-6.

  21. Sark WA, Grignon DJ. Prostate.Practice parameters, pathologic staging, and handling radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26(3):453-63.

  22. Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Nenner RP.Radical prostatectomy specimens among Medicare patients in New York State: a review of pathologists reports. Arc Pathol Lab Med 1998;122(11):966- 71.

  23. Amin MB, Grignon D, Bostwick D,Reuter V, Troncoso P, et al. Recommendations for reporting resected prostatic carcinomas with commentary. Pathol Case Rev 1998;3:223-32.

  24. ADASP (Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology).Recommendations for the reporting of resected prostate carcinomas. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105(6):667-70.

  25. Henson DE, Hutter RVP, Farrow G.Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. A publication of the cancer committee, College Of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994;118(8):779- 83.

  26. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seal-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM. The mechanisms and prognostic signifi- cance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17(12):1252-61.

  27. True LD. Surgical pathology examination of the prostate gland. Practice survey by American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102(5):572-9.

  28. Hall GS, Kramer CE, Epstein JI.Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. A comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16(4):315-24.

  29. Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI. Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (Stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 2001;32(5):494-9.

  30. Renshaw AA. Correlation of gross morphologic features with histologic features in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;110(1):38-42.

  31. Sakr WA, Wheeler TM, Blute M, Bodo M, Calle-Rodriguez R, et al. Staging and reporting of prostate cancersampling of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Cancer 1996;78(2):366-8.

  32. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124(7):995-1000.

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

  34. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50(3):125-8.

  35. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinomas by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111(1):58-64.

  36. Epstein JI, Algaba F, Allsbrook JWC,et al. Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et al. eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology & Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004;pp:179-84.

  37. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28(3):555-65.

  38. Epstein JI, Allsbrook JWC, Amin MB,Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(9):1228-42.

  39. Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT. Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 1994;43(1):60-67.

  40. Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T,Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28(3):394-8.

  41. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE,Clayton JL. Morphologic and clinicalsignificance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002;60(2):264-9.

  42. Bullock MJ, Srigley JR, Klotz LH,Goldenberg SL. Pathologic effects of neoadjuvant cyproterone acetate on nonneoplastic prostate, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma: a detailed analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens from a randomized trial. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26(11):1400-13.

  43. Vaillancourt L, Tetu B, Fradet Y,Dupont A, Gomez J, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (combined androgen blockade) on normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma: a randomized study. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20(1):86-93.

  44. McNeal JE. Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 1992;23(3):258- 66.

  45. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Blonski J,Graefen M, Palisaar J, et al. Zonal location of prostate cancer: significance for disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Urology 2003;62:79-85.

  46. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG,Irani J, De La Taille A, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol 2003;43(1):39-44.

  47. Carvalhal GF, Humphrey PA, Thorson P, Yan Y, Ramos CG, Catalona WJ. Visual estimate of percentage carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2000;89(6):1308-14.

  48. Ramos CG, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Humphrey PA, Catalona WJ. Percent carcinoma in prostatectomy specimen is associated with risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with pathologically organ confined prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;172(1):137-40.

  49. Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D’Amico AV. 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 1999;111(5):641-4.

  50. Jones EC. Resection margin status in radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens: relationship to type of operation, tumor size, tumor grade and local tumor extension. J Urol 1990;144(1):89-93.

  51. Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT. Percentage carcinoma as a measure of prostatic tumor size in radical prostatectomy tissues. Mod Pathol 1997;10(4):326-33.

  52. Chen ME, Johnston D, Reyes AO,Soto CP, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P. A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classi- fies prostate tumors by volume. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(10):1291-301.

  53. Trpkov K, Warman L. Use of digital maps and sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130(12):1751-2.

  54. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J,Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20(3):286-92.

  55. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostatic cancer. Hum Pathol 1998;29:856-62.

  56. Gerber GS, Thisted RA, Scardino PT,Frohmuller HG, Schroeder FH, et al. Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Multi-institutional pooled analysis. JAMA 1996;276(8):615-9.

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

  58. Debras B, Guillonneau B, Bougaran J,Chambon E, Vallancien G. Prognostic significance of seminal vesicle invasion on the radical prostatectomy specimen: rationale for seminal vesicle biopsies. Eur Urol 1998;33(3):271-7.

  59. Tefilli MC, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Banerjee M, Sakr W, et al. Prognostic indicators in patients with seminal vesicle involvement following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;160(3 Pt 1):802-6.

  60. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Potter SR,Walsh PC. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology 2000;56(2):283-8.

  61. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.

  62. Epstein JI. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection. The significance of margins designated as negative, closely approaching, and positive. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14(7):626-32.

  63. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK,Cheng L. Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(2):225-9.

  64. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M,Kattan MW, Wheeler T, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174(3);903-07.

  65. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E,Begg CB, Wheeler TM, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2292-5.

  66. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW,Goto Y, Scardino PT. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1995;154(5):1818-24.

  67. Epstein JI. Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin North Am 1996;23(4):651-63.

  68. Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence,etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998;160(2):299-315.

  69. Ng JC, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Cheng L.Perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. J Urol 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2249-51.

  70. Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18(8):796-803.

  71. Bastacky SI, Walsh PC, Epstein JI.Relationship between perineural tumor invasion on needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy capsular penetration in clinical stage B adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17(4):336-41.

  72. Anderson PR, Hanlon AL, Patchefsky A, Al-Saleem T, Hanks GE. Perineural invasion and Gleason 7-10 tumors predict increased failure in prostate cancer patients with pretreatment PSA <10 ng/mL treated with conformal external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;41(5):1087-92.

  73. Endrizzi J, Seay T. The relationship between early biochemical failure and perineural invasion in pathological T2 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2000;85(6):696-8.

  74. Egan AJ, Bostwick DG. Prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer on needle biopsy findings: perineural invasion lacks significance on multivariate analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21(12):1496-500.

  75. Ali TZ, Epstein JI. Perineural involvement by benign prostatic glands on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(9):1159-63.

  76. Bahnson RR, Dresner SM, Gooding W,Becich MJ. Incidence and prognostic significance of lymphatic and vascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 1989;15(2):149-55.

  77. McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Significance of demonstrable vascular space invasion for the progression of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20(11):1351-60.

  78. van den Ouden D, Hop WC, Kranse R,Schröder FH. Tumor control according to pathological variables in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1997;79(2):203- 11.

  79. De la Taille A, Rubin MA, Buttyan R,Olsson CA, Bagiella E, et al. Is microvascular invasion on radical prostatectomy specimens a useful predictor of PSA recurrence for prostate cancer patients? Eur Urol 2000;38(1):79-84.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com