Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy

Modern Pathology

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 630-636

  Kweldam, Charlotte F ^a   Kümmerlin, Intan P ^a   Nieboer, Daan ^a   Verhoef, Esther I ^a   Steyerberg, Ewout W ^a   Van Der Kwast, Theodorus H ^b   Roobol, Monique J ^a   Van Leenders, Geert J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; DISEASE SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CRIBRIFORM CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SURVIVAL RATE; WATCHFUL WAITING; ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; EUROPE; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATE TUMOR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR INVASION;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; BIOPSY; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; EUROPE; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84959537263     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.49     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. 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. 2016; 40: 244-252.
2. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011; 136: 98-107.
3. Kryvenko ON, Gupta NS, Virani N, et al. Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate with lymph node metastases: analysis of 184 radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137: 610-617.
4. Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, et al. Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013; 37: 1855-1861.
5. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015; 28: 457-464.
6. Epstein JI, AW C Jr, Amin MB, et al. ISUP Grading Committee The 2005 InterNational Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 1228-1242.
7. Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006; 19: 1528-1535.
8. Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2010; 184: 1328-1333.
9. Van der Kwast T, Al Daoud N, Collette L, et al. Biopsy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma is prognostic in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48: 1318-1325.
10. Watts K, Li J, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. Incidence and clinicopathological characteristics of intraductal carcinoma detected in prostate biopsies: a prospective cohort study. Histopathology. 2013; 63: 574-579.
11. Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, et al. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2014; 74: 680-687.
12. Chen ZB, Chen N, Shen PF, et al. The presence and clinical implication of intraductal carcinoma of prostate in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Prostate. 2015; 75: 1247-1254.
13. Trudel D, Downes MR, Sykes J, et al. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50: 1610-1616.
14. Roobol MJ, Schroder FH. European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer: achievements and presentation. BJU Int. 2003; 92 Suppl 2: 117-122.
15. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1320-1328.
16. De Koning HJ, Blom J, Merkelbach JW, et al. Determining the cause of death in randomized screening trial(s) for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2003; 92 Suppl 2: 71-78.
17. Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies: with Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. Springer: New York, 2001, pp 256-258.
18. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. In: Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer: New York, 2009, pp 260-270.
19. McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M, et al. The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2011; 186: 465-469.
20. Zhou M, Li JB, Cheng L, et al. Diagnosis of "poorly formed glands" Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39: 1331-1339.
21. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, et al. Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch. 2011; 459: 175-182.
22. Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H, et al. A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131: 1103-1109.
23. Haffner MC, Weier C, Xu MM, et al. Molecular evidence that invasive adenocarcinoma can mimic prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and intraductal carcinoma through retrograde glandular colonization. J Pathol. 2016; 238: 31-41.
24. Shah IA, Schlageter MO, Stinnett P, et al. Cytokeratin immunohistochemistry as a diagnostic tool for distinguishing malignant from benign epithelial lesions of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 1991; 4: 220-224.
25. Qian J, Jenkins RB, Bostwick DG. Detection of chromosomal anomalies and c-myc gene amplification in the cribriform pattern of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol. 1997; 10: 1113-1119.
26. Jenkins RB, Qian J, Lieber MM, et al. Detection of c-myc oncogene amplification and chromosomal anomalies in metastatic prostatic carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cancer Res. 1997; 57: 524-531.
27. Dawkins HJ, Sellner LN, Turbett GR, et al. Distinction between intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), high-grade dysplasia (PIN), and invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma, using molecular markers of cancer progression. Prostate. 2000; 44: 265-270.
28. Bettendorf O, Schmidt H, Staebler A, et al. Chromosomal imbalances, loss of heterozygosity, and immunohistochemical expression of TP53, RB1, and PTEN in intraductal cancer, intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2008; 47: 565-572.
29. Lindberg J, Kristiansen A, Wiklund P, et al. Tracking the origin of metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 819-822.