Search

Context.-Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading. prostate cancer grading. Objective.-To update grading recommendations Data Sources.-Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys. Conclusions.-Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace "tertiary grade pattern'' in radical prostatectomy (RP) with "minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5),'' and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDCP) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) "atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)'' is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

In November, 2014, 65 prostate cancer pathology experts, along with 17 clinicians including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists from 19 different countries gathered in a consensus conference to update the grading of prostate cancer, last revised in 2005. The major conclusions were: (1) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (2) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (3) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern 4; and (4) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not be assigned a Gleason grade and a comment as to its invariable association with aggressive prostate cancer should be made. Regarding morphologies of Gleason patterns, there was clear consensus on: (1) Gleason pattern 4 includes cribriform, fused, and poorly formed glands; (2) The term hypernephromatoid cancer should not be used; (3) For a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4, it needs to be seen at 10x lens magnification; (4) Occasional/seemingly poorly formed or fused glands between well-formed glands is insufficient for a diagnosis of pattern 4; (5) In cases with borderline morphology between Gleason pattern 3 and pattern 4 and crush artifacts, the lower grade should be favored; (6) Branched glands are allowed in Gleason pattern 3; (7) Small solid cylinders represent Gleason pattern 5; (8) Solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces should be considered to represent Gleason pattern 5; and (9) Presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis, even if focal is indicative of Gleason pattern 5. It was recognized by both pathologists and clinicians that despite the above changes, there were deficiencies with the Gleason system. The Gleason grading system ranges from 2 to 10, yet 6 is the lowest score currently assigned. When patients are told that they have a Gleason score 6 out of 10, it implies that their prognosis is intermediate and contributes to their fear of having a more aggressive cancer. Also, in the literature and for therapeutic purposes, various scores have been incorrectly grouped together with the assumption that they have a similar prognosis. For example, many classification systems consider Gleason score 7 as a single score without distinguishing 3+4 versus 4+3, despite studies showing significantly worse prognosis for the latter. The basis for a new grading system was proposed in 2013 by one of the authors (J.I.E.) based on data from Johns Hopkins Hospital resulting in 5 prognostically distinct Grade Groups. This new system was validated in a multi-institutional study of over 20,000 radical prostatectomy specimens, over 16,000 needle biopsy specimens, and over 5,000 biopsies followed by radiation therapy. There was broad (90%) consensus for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system in the 2014 consensus conference based on: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumors than the current system; (2) the classification simplified the number of grading categories from Gleason scores 2 to 10, with even more permutations based on different pattern combinations, to Grade Groups 1 to 5; (3) the lowest grade is 1 not 6 as in Gleason, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of indolent cancer; and (4) the current modified Gleason grading, which forms the basis for the new grade groups, bears little resemblance to the original Gleason system. The new grades would, for the foreseeable future, be used in conjunction with the Gleason system [ie. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1)]. The new grading system and the terminology Grade Groups 1-5 have also been accepted by the World Health Organization for the 2016 edition of Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs.

The International Society of Urological Pathology held a conference devoted to issues in testicular and penile pathology in Boston in March 2015, which included a presentation and discussion led by the testis microscopic features working group. This conference focused on controversies related to staging and reporting of testicular tumors and was preceded by an online survey of the International Society of Urological Pathology members. The survey results were used to initiate discussions, but decisions were made by expert consensus rather than voting. A number of recommendations emerged from the conference, including that lymphovascular invasion (LVI) should always be reported and no distinction need be made between lymphatic or blood invasion. If LVI is equivocal, then it should be regarded as negative to avoid triggering unnecessary therapy. LVI in the spermatic cord is considered as category pT2, not pT3, unless future studies provide contrary evidence. At the time of gross dissection, a block should be taken just superior to the epididymis to define the base of the spermatic cord, and direct invasion of tumor in this block indicates a category of pT3. Pagetoid involvement of the rete testis epithelium must be distinguished from rete testis stromal invasion, with only the latter being prognostically useful. Percentages of different tumor elements in mixed germ cell tumors should be reported. Although consensus was reached on many issues, there are still areas of practice that need further evidence on which to base firm recommendations.

Contains fulltext : 97055.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to extraprostatic extension (pT3a disease), bladder neck invasion, lymphovascular invasion and the definition of pT4 were coordinated by working group 3. It was agreed that prostate cancer can be categorized as pT3a in the absence of adipose tissue involvement when cancer bulges beyond the contour of the gland or beyond the condensed smooth muscle of the prostate at posterior and posterolateral sites. Extraprostatic extension can also be identified anteriorly. It was agreed that the location of extraprostatic extension should be reported. Although there was consensus that the amount of extraprostatic extension should be quantitated, there was no agreement as to which method of quantitation should be employed. There was overwhelming consensus that microscopic urinary bladder neck invasion by carcinoma should be reported as stage pT3a and that lymphovascular invasion by carcinoma should be reported. It is recommended that these elements are considered in the development of practice guidelines and in the daily practice of urological surgical pathology. 01 januari 2011

During the last 30 years many advances have been made in kidney tumor pathology. In 1981, 9 entities were recognized in the WHO Classification. In the latest classification of 2004, 50 different types have been recognized. Additional tumor entities have been described since and a wide variety of prognostic parameters have been investigated with variable success; however, much attention has centered upon the importance of features relating to both stage and grade. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommends after consensus conferences the development of reporting guidelines, which have been adopted worldwide ISUP undertook to review all aspects of the pathology of adult renal malignancy through an international consensus conference to be held in 2012. As in the past, participation in this consensus conference was restricted to acknowledged experts in the field.

Item does not contain fulltext The International Society of Urological Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference made recommendations regarding classification, prognostic factors, staging, and immunohistochemical and molecular assessment of adult renal tumors. Issues relating to prognostic factors were coordinated by a workgroup who identified tumor morphotype, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation, tumor necrosis, grading, and microvascular invasion as potential prognostic parameters. There was consensus that the main morphotypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were of prognostic significance, that subtyping of papillary RCC (types 1 and 2) provided additional prognostic information, and that clear cell tubulopapillary RCC was associated with a more favorable outcome. For tumors showing sarcomatoid or rhabdoid differentiation, there was consensus that a minimum proportion of tumor was not required for diagnostic purposes. It was also agreed upon that the underlying subtype of carcinoma should be reported. For sarcomatoid carcinoma, it was further agreed upon that if the underlying carcinoma subtype was absent the tumor should be classified as a grade 4 unclassified carcinoma with a sarcomatoid component. Tumor necrosis was considered to have prognostic significance, with assessment based on macroscopic and microscopic examination of the tumor. It was recommended that for clear cell RCC the amount of necrosis should be quantified. There was consensus that nucleolar prominence defined grades 1 to 3 of clear cell and papillary RCCs, whereas extreme nuclear pleomorphism or sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation defined grade 4 tumors. It was agreed upon that chromophobe RCC should not be graded. There was consensus that microvascular invasion should not be included as a staging criterion for RCC.

Several oncogenes involved in prostate carcinogenesis activate mitogen- activated protein (MAP) kinases, which can relay both proliferative (via extracellular regulated kinases (ERK)) and apoptotic signals (via jun N- terminal protein kinases (JNK)) to the nucleus. Mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 1 (MKP-1) is induced by several oncogenes in the ras- dependent pathway and can inactivate both MAP kinase pathways. The role of MKP-1 in proliferation and apoptosis is, however, still controversial. A series of 51 prostate cancers, including a subset (n = 13) that had been previously treated by androgen ablation, was used to examine whether MKP-1 mRNA and protein expression correlated with that of ERK-1, JNK-1, bcl-2, which confers resistance to apoptosis, and apoptotic index measured by in situ end-labeling of fragmented DNA. In a subset of tumors, MKP-1 expression was assessed by semiquantitative RT-PCR and was compared with both ERK-1 and JNK-1 enzymatic activity. In cases not treated by endrogen ablation, MKP-1 was overexpressed in the preinvasive stage of prostate cancer, but its expression decreased with higher histologic grade and advanced disease stage. There was coexpression of MKP-1, ERK-1, and JNK-1 proteins. In addition, MKP- 1 expression was inversely correlated to JNK-1 but not to ERK-1 enzymatic activity. Finally, MKP-1 and bcl-2 were inversely related to apoptotic indices. In cases treated by total androgen ablation, MKP-1 and bcl-2 were both down-regulated, whereas JNK-1 was up-regulated. Subpopulations of cells that did not undergo apoptosis maintained expression of both MKP-1 and bcl- 2. These results suggest that MKP-1 overexpression is associated with the early phases of neoplastic transformation in prostate tissue. The enzymatic data on MKP-1 kinase substrates and the inverse correlation between MKP-1 and parameters of programmed cell death support the hypothesis that MKP-1 inhibits apoptosis in human prostate tumors, perhaps through the JNK pathway.

Immunotherapy targeting the PD-1–PD-L1 axis yielded good results in treating different immunologically ‘‘hot’’ tumors. A phase II study revealed good therapeutic activity of pembrolizumab in selected prostatic carcinoma (PC)-patients. We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines), which analyzes the immunohistochemical expression of PD-L1 in human PC samples and highlights the pre-analytical and interpretation variables. Interestingly, 29% acinar PCs, 7% ductal PCs, and 46% neuroendocrine carcinomas/tumors were PD-L1+ on immunohistochemistry. Different scoring methods or cut-off criteria were applied on variable specimen-types, evaluating tumors showing different clinic-pathologic features. The positivity rate of different PD-L1 antibody clones in tumor cells ranged from 3% (SP142) to 50% (ABM4E54), excluding the single case tested for RM-320. The most tested clone was E1L3N, followed by 22C3 (most used for pembrolizumab eligibility), SP263, SP142, and 28-8, which gave the positivity rates of 35%, 11–41% (depending on different scoring systems), 6%, 3%, and 15%, respectively. Other clones were tested in

Many studies have investigated the potential prognostic and predictive role of PD-L1 in prostatic carcinoma (PC). We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines) to critically evaluate human tissue-based studies (immunohistochemistry, molecular analysis, etc.), experimental research (cell lines, mouse models), and clinical trials. Despite some controversial results and study limitations, PD-L1 expression by tumor cells may be related to clinic–pathologic features of adverse outcome, including advanced tumor stage (high pT, presence of lymph node, and distant metastases), positivity of surgical margins, high Grade Group, and castration resistance. Different PD-L1 positivity rates may be observed in matched primary PCs and various metastatic sites of the same patients. Over-fixation, type/duration of decalcification, and PD-L1 antibody clone may influence the immunohistochemical analysis of PD-L1 on bone metastases. PD-L1 seemed expressed more frequently by castration-resistant PCs (49%) as compared to hormone-sensitive PCs (17%). Some series found that PD-L1 positivity was associated with decreased time to castration resistance. Treatment with ipilimumab, cyclophosphamide/GVAX/degarelix, or degarelix alone may increase PD-L1 expression. Correlation of PD-L1 positivity with overall survival and outcomes related to tumor recurrence were rarely investigated; the few analyzed series produced conflicting results and sometimes showed limitations. Further studies are required. The testing and scoring of PD-L1 should be standardized.

Purpose: To survey urologic clinicians regarding interpretation of and practice patterns in relation to emerging aspects of prostate cancer grading, including quantification of high-grade disease, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and impact of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted needle biopsy. Materials and methods: The Genitourinary Pathology Society distributed a survey to urology and urologic oncology-focused societies and hospital departments. Eight hundred and thirty four responses were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Eighty percent of survey participants use quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy for clinical decisions, less frequently with higher Grade Groups. Fifty percent interpret "tertiary" grade as a minor/< 5% component. Seventy percent of respondents would prefer per core grading as well as a global/overall score per set of biopsies, but 70% would consider highest Gleason score in any single core as the grade for management. Seventy five percent utilize Grade Group terminology in patient discussions. For 45%, cribriform pattern would affect management, while for 70% the presence of intraductal carcinoma would preclude active surveillance. Conclusion: This survey of practice patterns in relationship to prostate cancer grading highlights similarities and differences between contemporary pathology reporting and its clinical application. As utilization of Gleason pattern 4 quantification, minor tertiary pattern, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and the incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging-based strategies evolve, these findings may serve as a basis for more nuanced communication and guide research efforts involving pathologists and clinicians. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Context.— Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading. Objective.— To update grading recommendations. Data Sources.— Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys. Conclusions.— Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace “tertiary grade pattern” in radical prostatectomy (RP) with “minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5),” and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) “atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)” is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.

Renal Medullary Carcinomas (RMCs) and Collecting Duct Carcinomas (CDCs) are rare subsets of lethal high-stage, high-grade distal nephron-related adenocarcinomas with a predilection for the renal medullary region. Recent findings have established an emerging group of fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient tumors related to hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome (HLRCC-RCCs) within this morphologic spectrum. Recently-developed, reliable ancillary testing has enabled consistent separation between these tumor types. Here, we present the clinicopathologic features and differences in the morphological patterns between RMCs, CDCs and FH-deficient RCCs in consequence of these recent developments. This study included a total of 100 cases classified using contemporary criteria and ancillary tests. Thirty-three RMCs (SMARCB1/INI1-deficient, hemoglobinopathy), 38 CDCs (SMARCB1/INI1-retained) and 29 RCCs defined by the FH-deficient phenotype (FH-/2SC+ or FH±/2SC+ with FH mutation, regardless of HLRCC syndromic stigmata/ history) were selected. The spectrum of morphologic patterns was critically evaluated and the differences between the morphological patterns present in the three groups were analyzed statistically. Twenty five percent of cases initially diagnosed as CDC were reclassified as FH-deficient RCC based on our contemporary diagnostic approach. Among the different overlapping morphologic patterns, sieve-like/cribriform and reticular/yolk sac tumor-like patterns favored RMCs, whereas intracystic papillary and tubulocystic patterns favored FH-deficient RCC. Tubulopapillary pattern favored both CDCs and FH-deficient RCCs, and multinodular infiltrating papillary pattern favored CDCs. Infiltrating glandular and solid sheets/cords/nested patterns were not statistically different among the three groups. Viral inclusion-like large nucleoli considered as a hallmark of HLRCC-RCCs were observed significantly more frequently in FH-deficient RCCs. Despite the overlapping morphology found among these clinically aggressive infiltrating high-grade adenocarcinomas of the kidney, reproducible differences in morphology emerged between these categories after rigorous characterization. Finally, we recommend that definitive diagnosis of CDC should only be made if RMC and FH-deficient RCC are excluded.

Objective To evaluate the detection of near-infrared fluorescence from prostate tumors stained with a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–targeted tracer developed in our institution with a novel robotic imaging system. Methods Prostate cancer cell lines PC3-pip (PSMA positive) and PC3-flu (PSMA negative) were implanted subcutaneously into 6 immunodeficient mice. When tumors reached 5 mm, a PSMA-targeted fluorescent conjugate was injected intravenously. The first 3 mice underwent near-infrared imaging immediately and hourly up to 4 hours after injection to determine the time necessary to obtain peak fluorescence and were killed. The last 3 mice were imaged once preoperatively and were euthanized 120 minutes later. Excision of the tumors was performed by using a novel robotic imaging system to detect near-infrared fluorescence in real time. Specimens were submitted for pathology. Results In the first 3 mice, we found 120 minutes as the time needed to observe peak fluorescence from the PSMA-positive tumors. We identified discrete near-infrared fluorescence from 2 of 3 PSMA-positive tumors with the robotic imaging system. Surgical margins were negative for all excised specimens except for one PSMA-negative tumor. Conclusions Real-time near-infrared fluorescence imaging of prostate cancer is feasible with a novel robotic imaging system. Further research is needed to optimize the signal intensity detectable from prostate cancer with our tracer. Toxicologic studies are needed before its clinical use.