Search

Oncocytic renal neoplasms are a major source of diagnostic challenge in genitourinary pathology; however, they are typically nonaggressive in general, raising the question of whether distinguishing different subtypes, including emerging entities, is necessary. Emerging entities recently described include eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC), low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT), and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity (PRNRP). A survey was shared among 65 urologic pathologists using SurveyMonkey.com (Survey Monkey, Santa Clara, CA, USA). De-identified and anonymized respondent data were analyzed. Sixty-three participants completed the survey and contributed to the study. Participants were from Asia (n = 21; 35%), North America (n = 31; 52%), Europe (n = 6; 10%), and Australia (n = 2; 3%). Half encounter oncocytic renal neoplasms that are difficult to classify monthly or more frequently. Most (70%) indicated that there is enough evidence to consider ESC RCC as a distinct entity now, whereas there was less certainty for LOT (27%), EVT (29%), and PRNRP (37%). However, when combining the responses for sufficient evidence currently and likely in the future, LOT and EVT yielded > 70% and > 60% for PRNRP. Most (60%) would not render an outright diagnosis of oncocytoma on needle core biopsy. There was a dichotomy in the routine use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the evaluation of oncocytoma (yes = 52%; no = 48%). The most utilized IHC markers included keratin 7 and 20, KIT, AMACR, PAX8, CA9, melan A, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)B, and fumarate hydratase (FH). Genetic techniques used included TSC1/TSC2/MTOR (67%) or TFE3 (74%) genes and pathways; however, the majority reported using these very rarely. Only 40% have encountered low-grade oncocytic renal neoplasms that are deficient for FH. Increasing experience with the spectrum of oncocytic renal neoplasms will likely yield further insights into the most appropriate work-up, classification, and clinical management for these entities., Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is a well-characterised precursor lesion in prostate cancer. The term atypical intraductal proliferations (AIP) describes lesions with features that are far too atypical to be considered HGPIN, yet insufficient to be diagnosed as intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP). Here, a panel of biomarkers was assessed to provide insights into the biological relationship between IDCP, HGPIN, and AIP and their relevance to current clinicopathological recommendations. Tissue samples from 86 patients with prostate cancer were assessed by routine haematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemistry (IHC) with a biomarker panel (Appl1/Sortilin/Syndecan-1) and a PIN4 cocktail (34βE12+P63/P504S). Appl1 strongly labelled atypical secretory cells, effectively visualising intraductal lesions. Sortilin labelling was moderate-to-strong in > 70% of cases, while Syndecan-1 was moderate-to-strong in micropapillary HGPIN/AIP lesions (83% cases) versus flat/tufting HGPIN (≤ 20% cases). Distinct biomarker labelling patterns for atypical intraductal lesions of the prostate were observed, including early atypical changes (flat/tufting HGPIN) and more advanced atypical changes (micropapillary HGPIN/AIP). Furthermore, the biomarker panel may be used as a tool to overcome the diagnostic uncertainty surrounding AIP by supporting a definitive diagnosis of IDCP for such lesions displaying the same biomarker pattern as cribriform IDCP., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners., Methods and Analysis: We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy)., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

This study investigated the prognostic value of the chemokine C-C motif ligand 2 (CCL2) and its receptor C-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) expression in locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation using the 10-year outcome data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR clinical trial. CCL2 and CCR2 protein expression in prostate cancer biopsies at the time of diagnosis were quantified by immunohistochemistry and digital quantification. CCR2 protein expression was detected in prostate cancer cells and was associated with prostate-specific antigen serum concentration ( p = 0.045). However, neither CCL2 nor CCR2 tissue expression could predict prostate cancer progression, or other clinicopathological parameters including perineural invasion and patient outcome. In serum samples, CCL2 concentration at the time of diagnosis, as assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, was significantly higher in patients with prostate cancer compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia (median difference 0.22 ng/mL, 95% CI, 0.17-0.30) ( p < 0.0001) and normal controls (median difference 0.13 ng/mL, 95% CI, 0.13-0.17) ( p < 0.0001). However, circulating CCL2 was not statistically significant as a predictor of disease progression and patient outcome. In conclusion, this study shows that although CCL2 and CCR2 are expressed in prostate cancer, with an increased level of CCL2 in the serum, neither CCL2 nor CCR2 expression has a clinical prognostic value in locally advanced prostate cancer.

The diagnosis of prostate cancer using histopathology is reliant on the accurate interpretation of prostate tissue sections. Current standards rely on the assessment of Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining, which can be difficult to interpret and introduce inter-observer variability. Here, we present a digital pathology atlas and online resource of prostate cancer tissue micrographs for both H&E and the reinterpretation of samples using a novel set of three biomarkers as an interactive tool, where clinicians and scientists can explore high resolution histopathology from various case studies. The digital pathology prostate cancer atlas when used in conjunction with the biomarkers, will assist pathologists to accurately grade prostate cancer tissue samples., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

A 5-tier grouping of Gleason scores has recently been proposed. Studies have indicated prognostic heterogeneity within these groups. We assessed prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) for men diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8 acinar adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy in a population-based national cohort. The Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0 was used for survival analysis with PCSM and ACM at 5 and 10 years as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors, stage and primary treatment type were used for PCSM and ACM. Among 199,620 men reported with prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172,112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. In 18,281 (11%), there was a Gleason score of 8 in needle biopsies, including a Gleason score of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 in 11%, 86% and 2.3%, respectively. The primary treatment was androgen deprivation therapy (55%), deferred treatment (8%), radical prostatectomy (16%) or radical radiotherapy (21%). PCSM in men with Gleason scores of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 at 5 years of follow-up was 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.12), 0.22 (0.22-0.23) and 0.32 (0.27-0.36), respectively, and at 10 years 0.19 (0.17-0.22), 0.34 (0.33-0.35) and 0.44 (0.39-0.49), respectively. There was a significantly higher PCSM after 5 and 10 years in men with Gleason score 5 + 3 cancers than in those with 4 + 4 and in Gleason score 4 + 4 cancers than in those with 3 + 5. Grouping of Gleason scores will eliminate the prognostic granularity of Gleason scoring, thus diminishing the prognostic significance of this proposed grading system., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The clinical importance of assessing and combining data on TP53 mutations and isoforms is discussed in this article. It gives a succinct overview of the structural makeup and key biological roles of the isoforms. It then provides a comprehensive summary of the roles that p53 isoforms play in cancer development, therapy response and resistance. The review provides a summary of studies demonstrating the role of p53 isoforms as potential prognostic indicators. It further provides evidence on how the presence of TP53 mutations may affect one or more of these activities and the association of p53 isoforms with clinicopathological data in various tumour types. The review gives insight into the present diagnostic hurdles for identifying TP53 isoforms and makes recommendations to improve their evaluation. In conclusion, this review offers suggestions for enhancing the identification and integration of TP53 isoforms in conjunction with mutation data within the clinical context., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since 2014, prostate cancer is reported using five-tier grouping of Gleason scores. Studies have suggested prognostic heterogeneity within the groups., Objective: We assessed the risk of prostate cancer death for men diagnosed with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 on needle biopsy in a population-based cohort., Design, Setting, and Participants: We used the data from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 4.0 for a survival analysis. Among 199 620 men reported to have prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172 112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. The primary treatment was classified as androgen deprivation therapy (66%), deferred treatment (5%), radical prostatectomy (7%), or radical radiotherapy (21%)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The risks of death from prostate cancer in men with Gleason score 9-10 at 5 and 10 yr were used as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors and primary treatment were used for time-to-event analyses of death from prostate cancer and death from any causes., Results and Limitations: A total of 20 419 (12%) men had a Gleason score of 9-10, including Gleason scores of 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 in 14 333 (70%), 4223 (21%), and 1863 (9%) men, respectively. The risks of prostate cancer death for men with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 at 10 yr of follow-up were 0.45 (confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.46), 0.56 (0.55-0.58), and 0.66 (0.63-0.68), respectively. The risks of death of any cause for men with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 at 10 yr were 0.73 (CI 0.72-0.74), 0.81 (0.80-0.83), and 0.87 (0.85-0.89), respectively., Conclusions: We demonstrate in the largest and most complete cohort analyzed to date that collapsing the Gleason scores by grouping results in loss of prognostic information in men with Gleason score 9-10 cancer., Patient Summary: Survival of prostate cancer patients with the highest tumor grades varies depending on grade composition., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Prostate adenocarcinoma is a common malignancy associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. In both prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens Gleason scoring informs both treatment and outcome prediction. The current convention is that in needle biopsies, Gleason patterns 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be malignant. Despite this there is debate as to whether or not Gleason score (GS) 3+3=6 should be diagnosed as cancer due to potential over-treatment and the psychological impact on patients. It is apparent that GS 3+3=6 is indolent disease with a low risk of metastasis. However, it does have the histological features of malignancy and is capable of infiltrating the prostate gland, extraprostatic extension, and metastatic spread. Furthermore GS 3+3=6 carcinoma has immunohistochemical and molecular genetic features similar to those of higher grade prostatic carcinoma. If GS 3+3=6 tumour is considered benign, the question arises should a benign label be given to the Gleason pattern 3 component of tumour that includes Gleason patterns of higher grade? This would seem a logical step as GS 3+3=6 cancers and the pattern 3 component in cancers with multiple patterns are morphologically identical. If pattern 3 is considered to be benign, then Gleason scoring would be limited to 4+4=8, 4+5=9, 5+4=9 and 5+5=10 which is clearly inappropriate. The correct strategy to address potential over-treatment of patients with low-grade cancer is clinician and patient education, not the recalibration of Gleason grading to reclassify malignant tumours as benign., (Copyright © 2023 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. All rights reserved.)