Search

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.

International audience

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.

Item does not contain fulltext The International Society of Urologic Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference on renal cancer, through working group 3, focused on the issues of staging and specimen handling of renal tumors. The conference was preceded by an online survey of the International Society of Urologic Pathology members, and the results of this were used to inform the focus of conference discussion. On formal voting a >/=65% majority was considered a consensus agreement. For specimen handling it was agreed that with radical nephrectomy specimens the initial cut should be made along the long axis and that both radical and partial nephrectomy specimens should be inked. It was recommended that sampling of renal tumors should follow a general guideline of sampling 1 block/cm with a minimum of 3 blocks (subject to modification as needed in individual cases). When measuring a renal tumor, the length of a renal vein/caval thrombus should not be part of the measurement of the main tumor mass. In cases with multiple tumors, sampling should include at a minimum the 5 largest tumors. There was a consensus that perinephric fat invasion should be determined by examining multiple perpendicular sections of the tumor/perinephric fat interface and by sampling areas suspicious for invasion. Perinephric fat invasion was defined as either the tumor touching the fat or extending as irregular tongues into the perinephric tissue, with or without desmoplasia. It was agreed upon that renal sinus invasion is present when the tumor is in direct contact with the sinus fat or the loose connective tissue of the sinus, clearly beyond the renal parenchyma, or if there is involvement of any endothelium-lined spaces within the renal sinus, regardless of the size. When invasion of the renal sinus is uncertain, it was recommended that at least 3 blocks of the tumor-renal sinus interface should be submitted. If invasion is grossly evident, or obviously not present (small peripheral tumor), it was agreed that only 1 block was needed to confirm the gross impression. Other recommendations were that the renal vein margin be considered positive only when there is adherent tumor visible microscopically at the actual margin. When a specimen is submitted separately as "caval thrombus," the recommended sampling strategy is to take 2 or more sections to look for the adherent caval wall tissue. It was also recommended that uninvolved renal parenchyma be sampled by including normal parenchyma with tumor and normal parenchyma distant from the tumor. There was consensus that radical nephrectomy specimens should be examined for the purpose of identifying lymph nodes by dissection/palpation of the fat in the hilar area only; however, it was acknowledged that lymph nodes are found in

Contains fulltext : 97056.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the infiltration of tumor into the seminal vesicles and regional lymph nodes were coordinated by working group 4. There was a consensus that complete blocking of the seminal vesicles was not necessary, although sampling of the junction of the seminal vesicles and prostate was mandatory. There was consensus that sampling of the vas deferens margins was not obligatory. There was also consensus that muscular wall invasion of the extraprostatic seminal vesicle only should be regarded as seminal vesicle invasion. Categorization into types of seminal vesicle spread was agreed by consensus to be not necessary. For examination of lymph nodes, there was consensus that special techniques such as frozen sectioning were of use only in high-risk cases. There was no consensus on the optimal sampling method for pelvic lymph node dissection specimens, although there was consensus that all lymph nodes should be completely blocked as a minimum. There was also a consensus that a count of the number of lymph nodes harvested should be attempted. In view of recent evidence, there was consensus that the diameter of the largest lymph node metastasis should be measured. These consensus decisions will hopefully clarify the difficult areas of pathological assessment in radical prostatectomy evaluation and improve the concordance of research series to allow more accurate assessment of patient prognosis. 01 januari 2011

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

Abnormalities of the locus chromosome 3p and the entire chromosome 3 are involved in the cancerogenesis of clear cell renal carcinoma and may be detected by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (interphase FISH). We observed a variable detection rate of chromosome 3p/3 abnormalities in different series of clear cell renal carcinoma. Therefore, we focused on problematic issues when performing analysis on routinely available formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded tissue. A group of studies encountered a single approach to chromosome 3p detection, by using probe/s to map different codes of the short arm 3p without a control of the entire chromosome 3. Deletion of chromosome 3p and monosomy of chromosome 3 ranged from 38% to 100% in clear cell renal carcinoma. Cut-off values for the threshold were chosen randomly or obtained by calculation of the mean value plus 1 or 2 or 3 standard deviations. Loss of chromosome 3p was assessed either as the percentage of single signals on the total number of nuclei, or applying a double approach with corrections of control chromosome 3. Moreover, cut off values were sometimes arbitrarily corrected with the findings from normal adjacent renal parenchyma. A consensus of experts in the field is needed in order to define the best methodological approach and the appropriate threshold in assessment 3p deletion when interphase FISH is performed in clear cell renal carcinoma. This harbours relevant diagnostic and therapeutic implications, at light also of targeted therapies recently available to clear cell renal carcinoma.

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.

Since target therapy with mTOR inhibitors plays an important role in the current management of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an increasing demand for predictive biomarkers, which may help to select patients that are most likely to benefit from personalized treatment. When dealing with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cancer tissue specimens, several techniques may be used to identify potential molecular markers, yielding different outcome in terms of accuracy. We sought to investigate and compare the capability of three main techniques to detect molecules performing an active function in mTOR pathway in RCC. Immunohistochemistry (IHC), Western blot (WB) and immunofluorescence (IF) analyses were performed on FFPE RCC tissue specimens from 16 patients by using the following mTOR pathway-related: mTOR (Ser235/236), phospho-mTOR (p-mTOR/Ser2448), phospho-p70S6k (p-p70S6k/Thr389), both monoclonal and polyclonal, phospho-S6Rb (p-S6Rb) and phospho-4EBP1 (p-4EBP1/Thr37/46). No single molecule was simultaneously revealed by all three techniques. Only p-p70S6k was detected by two methods (IHC and IF) using a monoclonal antibody. The other molecules were detected exclusively by one technique, as follows: p-mTOR and polyclonal p-p70S6K by IHC, p70S6K, p-S6Rb and p-4EBP1 by WB, and, finally, mTOR by IF. We found significant differences in detecting mTOR pathway-related active biomarkers by using three common techniques such as IHC, WB and IF on RCC samples. Such results have important implications in terms of predictive biomarker testing, and need to be related to clinical end-points such as responsiveness to targeted drugs by prospective studies.

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.

Item does not contain fulltext The classification working group of the International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on renal neoplasia was in charge of making recommendations regarding additions and changes to the current World Health Organization Classification of Renal Tumors (2004). Members of the group performed an exhaustive literature review, assessed the results of the preconference survey and participated in the consensus conference discussion and polling activities. On the basis of the above inputs, there was consensus that 5 entities should be recognized as new distinct epithelial tumors within the classification system: tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, clear cell (tubulo) papillary RCC, the MiT family translocation RCCs (in particular t(6;11) RCC), and hereditary leiomyomatosis RCC syndrome-associated RCC. In addition, there are 3 rare carcinomas that were considered as emerging or provisional new entities: thyroid-like follicular RCC; succinate dehydrogenase B deficiency-associated RCC; and ALK translocation RCC. Further reports of these entities are required to better understand the nature and behavior of these highly unusual tumors. There were a number of new concepts and suggested modifications to the existing World Health Organization 2004 categories. Within the clear cell RCC group, it was agreed upon that multicystic clear cell RCC is best considered as a neoplasm of low malignant potential. There was agreement that subtyping of papillary RCC is of value and that the oncocytic variant of papillary RCC should not be considered as a distinct entity. The hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor, which is an indolent tumor that occurs in 3 settings, namely Birt-Hogg-Dube Syndrome, renal oncocytosis, and as a sporadic neoplasm, was placed, for the time being, within the chromophobe RCC category. Recent advances related to collecting duct carcinoma, renal medullary carcinoma, and mucinous spindle cell and tubular RCC were elucidated. Outside of the epithelial category, advances in our understanding of angiomyolipoma, including the epithelioid and epithelial cystic variants, were considered. In addition, the apparent relationship between cystic nephroma and mixed epithelial and stromal tumor was discussed, with the consensus that these tumors form a spectrum of neoplasia. Finally, it was thought that the synovial sarcoma should be removed from the mixed epithelial and mesenchymal category and placed within the sarcoma group. The new classification is to be referred to as the International Society of Urological Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia.

Contains fulltext : 98029.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the handling and processing of radical prostatectomy specimens were coordinated by working group 1. Most uropathologists followed similar procedures for fixation of radical prostatectomy specimens, with 51% of respondents transporting tissue in formalin. There was also consensus that the prostate weight without the seminal vesicles should be recorded. There was consensus that the surface of the prostate should be painted. It was agreed that both the prostate apex and base should be examined by the cone method with sagittal sectioning of the tissue sample. There was consensus that the gland should be fully fixed before sectioning. Both partial and complete embedding of prostates was considered to be acceptable as long as the method of partial embedding is stated. No consensus was determined regarding the necessity of weighing and measuring the length of the seminal vesicles, the preparation of whole mounts rather than standardized blocks and the methodology for sampling of fresh tissue for research purposes, and it was agreed that these should be left to the discretion of the working pathologist. 01 januari 2011

Contains fulltext : 96027.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the 'capsular' margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present. 01 januari 2011

We investigated the usefulness of interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis to differentiate between 11 chromophobe renal carcinomas and 12 renal oncocytomas, showing different clinical outcomes, when compared with conventional metaphase cytogenetics by karyotyping. Karyotypically, 3 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas showed losses of chromosomes, 3 were polyploid, 1 was normal, and 4 failed to grow. Of 12 oncocytomas, 5 showed a normal numeric karyotype and 6 additional structural rearrangements. FISH on chromophobe renal cell carcinomas showed a high percentage of cases (10/11 [91%]) with multiple numeric losses among chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, and 17; this interphase pattern was observed irrespective of the 3 different metaphase karyotypes. Of 12 oncocytomas, 11 (92%) revealed a normal numeric chromosomal status showing at least 2 chromosomes without aneusomy by interphase FISH. The study demonstrates that indeed FISH performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue can provide clinically useful information more reliably than karyotyping of most of these tumors.