Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 136, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 98-107

  Iczkowski, Kenneth A ^a   Torkko, Kathleen C ^a   Kotnis, Gregory R ^a   Wilson, R Storey ^a   Huang, Wei ^b   Wheeler, Thomas M ^c   Abeyta, Andrea M ^a   La Rosa, Francisco G ^a   Cook, Shelly ^b   Werahera, Priya N ^a   Lucia, M Scott ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cribriform; Digital; Gleason; Grading; Papillary; Pattern; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL FEATURE; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER;

AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79955852619     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: 19437722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPZ7WBU9YXSJPE     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-128.
2. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT; and the VA Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64.
3. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273-279.
4. Berney DM. Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities. Histopathology. 2007;50:683-690. (Pubitemid 46683912)
5. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made [editorial]. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:477-478. (Pubitemid 30180740)
6. Billis A, Rogerio F, Oliveira RV, et al. The border between low- and high-grade Gleason score for prostate carcinoma: 6 or 7a (3+4) [abstract]? Mod Pathol. 2008;21:149A.
7. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, et al. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:563-569. (Pubitemid 30180750)
8. Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, et al. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110:1967-1972. (Pubitemid 350036855)
9. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3459-3464.
10. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1246.
11. Bailar JC, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation: preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:129-136.
12. Srigley JR, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, et al; for the Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland: a basis for checklists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1034-1039.
13. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:5-9. (Pubitemid 40215627)
14. Kronz JD, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI. Atypical cribriform lesions on prostate biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:147-155. (Pubitemid 32167496)
15. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1532-1539.
16. Ward JF, Moul JW. Rising prostate-specific antigen after primary prostate cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2005;2:174-182. (Pubitemid 40823138)
17. Werahera PN, Miller JG, Torkko K, et al. Biomorphometric analysis of human prostatic carcinoma by using threedimensional computer models. Hum Pathol. 2004;35:798-807. (Pubitemid 38903072)
18. Pacelli A, Lopez-Beltran A, Egan AJ, et al. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:543-546. (Pubitemid 28213477)
19. Bock BJ, Bostwick DG. Does prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma exist? Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:781-785.
20. Grignon DJ. Unusual subtypes of prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:316-327. (Pubitemid 41646610)
21. Lee TK, Miller JS, Epstein JI. Rare histological patterns of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pathology. 2010;42:319-324.
22. Brinker DA, Potter SR, Epstein JI. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on needle biopsy: correlation with clinical and radical prostatectomy findings and progression. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:1471-1479.
23. Tavora F, Epstein JI. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasialike ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1060-1067.
24. Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:471-477.
25. Iczkowski KA, Ferguson KL, Grier DD, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the prostate: clinicopathologic findings in 19 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1523-1529. (Pubitemid 37486613)
26. Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Clinical implications of changing definitions within the Gleason grading system. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:136-142.
27. Gopalan A, Leversha MA, Satagopan JM, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion is not associated with outcome in patients treated by prostatectomy. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1400-1406.
28. Mosquera JM, Mehra R, Regan MM, et al. Prevalence of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer among men undergoing prostate biopsy in the United States. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:4706-4711.
29. Han B, Suleman K, Wang L, et al. ETS gene aberrations in atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: implications for the distinction between intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:478-485.
30. Fine SW, Gopalan A, Leversha MA, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion is associated with low Gleason scores and not with high-grade morphological features. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:1325-1333.
31. Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology. 2009;55:384-391.
32. Guimaraes MS, Billis A, Quintal MM, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:139A.
33. Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:98-107. (Pubitemid 30053781)
34. Lane BR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, et al. Mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate does not confer poor prognosis. Urology. 2006;68:825-830. (Pubitemid 44633368)
35. Osunkoya AO, Nielsen ME, Epstein JI. Prognosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy: a study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:468-472. (Pubitemid 351398940)