Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. Key elements in structured histopathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens

Pathology

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 410-419

  Kench, James G ^a,b   Clouston, David R ^e   Delprado, Warick ^c   Eade, Thomas ^d   Ellis, David ^f   Horvath, Lisa G ^a,b   Samaratunga, Hemamali ⁱ   Stahl, Jurgen ^g   Stapleton, Alan M F ^h   Egevad, Lars ^j   Srigley, John R ^k   Delahunt, Brett ^l  

^a ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology   (Australia)

^d ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^e Focus Pathology   (Australia)

^f Division of Surgical Pathology   (Australia)

^g Adelaide Pathology Partners   (Australia)

^h Calvary Hospital   (Australia)

ⁱ Department of Aquesta Pathology ^*  (Australia)

^j KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^k MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^l UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

more..

Author keywords

Pathology; Prognostic factors; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052111717     PISSN: 00313025     EISSN: 14653931     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e328348a6b3     Document Type: Review

References (106)

1. AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) and AACR (Australasian Association of Cancer Registries). Cancer in Australia: An Overview, 2008. Canberra: AIHW, 2008; Cancer Series No. 46 (AIHW cat. no. CAN 42).
2. AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) and AACR (Australasian Association of Cancer Registries). Cancer in Australia: An Overview, 2006. Canberra: AIHW, 2007; Cancer Series No. 37 (AIHW cat. no. CAN 32).
3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1977-84.
4. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filén F, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting on localized prostate cancer: The Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1144-54.
5. Medicare Australia. Medicare Australia Claims Data, MBS Item numbers 37210 and 37211. Canberra: Medicare Australia, 2010. https://www. medicareaustralia. gov.au
6. Partin AW, Piantadosi S, Sanda MG, et al. Selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence for experimental adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy. Urology 1995; 45: 831-8.
7. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1499-507.
8. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 766-71.
9. Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA. The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 1998; 51: 481-2.
10. Mathers M, Shrimankar J, Scott D, et al. The use of a standard proforma in breast cancer reporting. J Clin Pathol 2001; 54: 809-11.
11. Srigley JR, McGowan T, MacLean A, et al. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99: 517-24.
12. Gill AJ, Johns AL, Eckstein R, et al. Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens. Pathology 2009; 41: 161-7.
13. Srigley JR. Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 303-17.
14. Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, 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.
15. 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: 494-9.
16. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. 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: 6-15.
17. Kench J, Clouston D, Delahunt B, et al. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Prostate Cancer (Radical Prostatectomy) Structured Reporting Protocol. Sydney: Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, 2010. http://www.rcpa.edu.au/Publications/StructuredReporting/CancerProtocols. htm.
18. Egevad L, Srigley JR, Delahunt B. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: Rationale and organization. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 1-5.
19. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125-8.
20. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, 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: 1228-42.
21. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. 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: 563-9.
22. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol 2002; 168: 509-13.
23. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 98: 2560-5.
24. Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28: 394-8.
25. Hattab EM, Koch MO, Eble JN, Lin H, Cheng L. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 2006; 175: 1695-9.
26. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B, Staffurth J, Mason MD. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 411-9.
27. Sim HG, Telesca D, Culp SH, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. J Urol 2008; 179: 1775-9.
28. Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR, et al. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2008; 179: 516-22.
29. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 2005; 36: 5-9.
30. Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Lamb DS. Gleason grading: Consensus and controversy. Pathology 2009; 41: 613-4.
31. Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 2008; 103: 1190-4.
32. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: A comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 2010; 42: 339-43.
33. Sakr WA, Wheeler TM, Blute M, et al. Staging and reporting of prostate cancer-sampling of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Cancer 1996; 78: 366-8.
34. Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, et al. The prostatic capsule: Does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1989; 13: 21-7.
35. Chuang AY, Epstein JI. Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: Histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 1201-6.
36. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. 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 2011; 24: 26-38.
37. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998; 29: 856-62.
38. Sung MT, Lin H, Koch MO, et al. 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 2007; 31: 311-8.
39. 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: 286-92.
40. Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van der Kwast TH, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 1503-12.
41. Van der Kwast TH, Collette L, Van Poppel H, et al. Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virch Arch 2006; 449: 428-34.
42. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variation among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003; 170: 2292-5.
43. Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 2006; 175: 140-5.
44. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007; 70: 965-9.
45. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 733-9.
46. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urology 2005; 174: 903-7.
47. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: Do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int 2008; 102: 1413-8.
48. Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, et al. Impact of a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol 2010; 183: 145-50.
49. Chang DK, Johns AL, Merrett ND, et al. Margin clearance and outcome in rejected pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2855-62.
50. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CAM, Kranenbarg EK, et al. Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: Not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 350-7.
51. 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: 225-9.
52. Epstein JI, Sauvageot J. Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol 1997; 157: 241-3.
53. 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: 626-32.
54. Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: Detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 1996; 48: 80-90.
55. Thompson IMJ, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Ajuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: A randomised clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2329-35.
56. Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organconfined prostate cancer? Urology 2001; 58: 746-51.
57. Kumano M, Miyake H, Muramaki M, et al. Adverse prognostic impact of capsular incision at radical prostatectomy for Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 2009; 41: 581-6.
58. Shuford MD, Cookson MS, Chang SS, et al. Adverse prognostic significance of capsular incision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172: 119-23.
59. Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 1306-10.
60. Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: Anatomic sitespecific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 1999; 54: 682-8.
61. Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: The influence of site and number on progression. J Urol 2002; 167: 2453-6.
62. Stephenson AJ,Wood DP, KattanMW, et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 1357-63.
63. Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, Guzzo TJ, et al. Defining pathologic variables to predict biochemical failure in patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: Implications for adjuvant therapy. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1377-80.
64. 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: 626-32.
65. Babaiab RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2001; 91: 1414-22.
66. Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS. Ability of length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology 2011; Jan 20: (Epub ahead of print).
67. Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. The relationship between the extent of the surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 2007; 38: 1207-11.
68. Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA. The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 994-1001.
69. Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology 2010; 76: 1206-9.
70. Bong GW, Ritenour CWM, Osunkoya AO, Smith MT, Keane TE. Evaluation of modern pathological criteria for positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens and their use for predicting biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2008; 103: 327-31.
71. Potter SR, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer: Prognostic significance and therapeutic implications. Rev Urol 2000; 2: 190-5.
72. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, et al. The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1993; 17: 1252-61.
73. Villers AA, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Pathogenesis and biological significance of seminal vesicle invasion in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 1990; 143: 1183-7.
74. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, et al. 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 2011; 24: 39-47.
75. Samaratunga H, Samaratunga D, Perry-Keene J, Yaxley J, Delahunt B. Distal seminal vesicle invasion by prostate adenocarcinoma does not occur in isolation of proximal seminal vesicle invasion or lymphovascular infiltration. Pathology 2010; 42: 330-3.
76. 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: 271-7.
77. Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, et al. Prognostic indicators in patients with seminal vesicle involvement following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 802-6.
78. 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: 283-8.
79. Swanson GP, Goldman B, Tangen CM, et al. The prognostic impact of seminal vesicle involvement found at prostatectomy and the effects of adjuvant radiation: Data from Southwest Oncology Group 8794. J Urol 2008; 180: 2453-7.
80. Sgrignoli AR, Walsh PC, Steinberg GD, Steiner MS, Epstein JI. Prognostic factors in men with stage D1 prostate cancer: Identification of patients less likely to have prolonged survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994; 152: 1077-81.
81. Cheng L, Bergstrahl EJ, Cheville JC, et al. Cancer volume of lymph node metastasis predicts progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22: 1491-500.
82. 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: 1589-93.
83. Cheng L, Pisansky TM, Ramnani DM, et al. Extranodal extension in lymph node-positive prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 2000; 13: 113-8.
84. Young MPA, Kirby RS, O'Donoghue EPN, Parkinson MC. Accuracy and cost of intraoperative lymph node frozen sections at radical prostatectomy. J Clin Pathol 1999; 52: 925-7.
85. Beissner RS, Stricker JB, Speights VO, et al. Frozen section diagnosis of metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma in pelvic lymphadenectomy compared with nomogram prediction of metastasis. Urology 2002; 59: 721-5.
86. Cheng L, Jones TD, Lin H, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 2005; 174: 2181-5.
87. Van Den Ouden D, Hop WCJ, Kranse R, Schroder FH. Tumour control according to pathological variables in pateints treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1997; 79: 203-11.
88. Herman CM, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Lymphovascular invasion as a predictor of disease progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 859-63.
89. Pierorazio PM, Epstein JI, Humphreys E, et al. 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 2010; 183: 151-7.
90. Poulos CK, Koch MO, Eble JN, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Bladder neck invasion is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence. Cancer 2004; 101: 1563-8.
91. Rodriguez-Covarrubias F, Larre S, Dahan M, et al. Prognostic significance of microscopic bladder neck invasion in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 758-61.
92. Zhou M, Reuther AM, Levin HS, et al. Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factor. Mod Pathol 2009; 22: 385-92.
93. Dash A, Sanda MG, Yu M, et al. Prostate cancer involving the bladder neck: Recurrence-free survival and implications for AJCC staging modification. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Urology 2002; 60: 276-80.
94. Yossepowitch O, Engelstein D, Konichezky M, et al. Bladder neck involvement at radical prostatectomy: Positive margins or advanced T4 disease? Urology 2000; 56: 448-52.
95. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer, 2010; 457-468.
96. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC. 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 1993; 149: 1478-81.
97. McNeal JE. Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: Relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 1992; 23: 258-66.
98. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71 (Suppl 3): 933-8.
99. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CBJ. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 365-74.
100. Postma R, de Vries SH, Roobol MJ, et al. Incidence and follow-up of patients with focal prostate carcinoma in 2 screening rounds after an interval of 4 years. Cancer 2005; 103: 708-16.
101. Van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. 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 2011; 24: 16-25.
102. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, et al. An analysis of 148 transition zone cancers: Clinical and histological characteristics. J Urol 2000; 163: 1751-5.
103. Shannon BA, McNeal JE, Cohen RJ. Transition zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: A common indolent tumour type that occasionally manifests aggressive behaviour. Pathology 2003; 35: 467-71.
104. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Blonski J, et al. Zonal location of prostate cancer: Significance for disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Urology 2003; 62: 79-85.
105. Chun FK, Briganti A, Jeldres C, et al. Zonal origin of localized prostate cancer does not affect the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 949-55.
106. Schlomm T, Erbersdobler A, Mirlacher M, Sauter G. Molecular staging of prostate cancer in the year 2007. World J Urol 2007; 25: 19-30