Search

The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems encompasses several updates to the classification and diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma as well as incorporating advancements in the assessment of its prognosis, including recent grading modifications. Some of the salient aspects include: (1) recognition that prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like carcinoma is not synonymous with a pattern of ductal carcinoma, but better classified as a subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma; (2) a specific section on treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma in view of the tight correlation between androgen deprivation therapy and the development of prostatic carcinoma with neuroendocrine morphology, and the emerging data on lineage plasticity; (3) a terminology change of basal cell carcinoma to "adenoid cystic (basal cell) cell carcinoma" given the presence of an underlying MYB::NFIB gene fusion in many cases; (4) discussion of the current issues in the grading of acinar adenocarcinoma and the prognostic significance of cribriform growth patterns; and (5) more detailed coverage of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P) reflecting our increased knowledge of this entity, while recommending the descriptive term atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) for lesions falling short of IDC-P but containing more atypia than typically seen in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN). Lesions previously regarded as cribriform patterns of HGPIN are now included in the AIP category. This review discusses these developments, summarising the existing literature, as well as the emerging morphological and molecular data that underpins the classification and prognostication of prostatic carcinoma.

Contains fulltext : 245166.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) AIMS: Current guidelines for pathology reporting on pancreatic cancer differ in certain aspects, resulting in divergent reporting practices and a lack of comparability of data. Here, we report on a new international dataset for pathology reporting on resection specimens with cancer of the exocrine pancreas (ductal adenocarcinoma and acinar cell carcinoma). The dataset was produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), which is a global alliance of major (inter)national pathology and cancer organisations. METHODS AND RESULTS: According to the ICCR's rigorous process for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pancreatic pathologists, a pancreatic surgeon and an oncologist produced a set of core and non-core data items based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or non-core element and its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the document was finalised and ratified, and the dataset, which includes a synoptic reporting guide, was published on the ICCR website. CONCLUSIONS: This first international dataset for cancer of the exocrine pancreas is intended to promote high-quality, standardised pathology reporting. Its widespread adoption will improve the consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance the comparability of data, all of which will help to improve the management of pancreatic cancer patients.

We have read with interest the recent debate between Drs Varma and Epstein regarding the grading of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.$^{1}$ Unfortunately, the arguments as presented do little to abate the confusion surrounding this so-called diagnostic entity.

This project was designed to harmonise the Royal College of Pathologists, College of American Pathologists and Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia datasets, checklists and structured reporting protocols for examination of radical prostatectomy specimens, with the aim of producing a common, internationally agreed, evidence-based dataset for prostate cancer reporting. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting prostate cancer expert review panel analysed the three existing datasets, identifying concordant items and classified these data elements as 'required' (mandatory) or 'recommended' (non-mandatory), on the basis of the published literature up to August 2011. Required elements were defined as those that have agreed evidentiary support at NHMRC level III-2 or above. Consensus response values were formulated for each item. Twelve concordant pathology data elements were identified, and, on review, all but one were included as required elements for tumour staging, grading, or prediction of prognosis. There was minor discordance between the three existing datasets for another eight items, with two of these being added to the required data set. Another 11 elements with a lesser level of evidentiary support were included in the recommended dataset. This process was found to be an efficient method for producing an evidence-based dataset for prostate cancer. Such internationally agreed datasets should facilitate meaningful comparison of benchmarking data, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials.