Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomo-pathology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Management of Prostate Cancer

  • 1355 Accesses

Abstract

Knowledge of the anatomical and pathological features of the prostate and its neoplastic proliferations is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Ongoing research continues to bring forward new and important insights into the anatomy of the prostate and a better understanding of prostate cancer histopathology. Recent advances in the identification of histological markers of aggressive disease and tumor grading provide additional prognostic information to guide clinical decision making and have been incorporated in a new prostate cancer grading system. With the increased availability of modern imaging modalities, clinicians have become more aware of the importance of prostate cancers in the anterior region of the prostate, particularly in the context of active surveillance of patients with a presumed low risk prostate cancer. This chapter addresses these advances in the context of an overview of the anatomo-pathology of the prostate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Al-Ahmadie HA, Tickoo SK, Olgac S, et al. Anterior-predominant prostatic tumors: zone of origin and pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreoiu M, Cheng L. Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol. 2010;41:781–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, et al. REDUCE Study Group. Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1192–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Blonski J, et al. Zonal location of prostate cancer: significance for disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2003;62:79–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, Troncoso P, Grignon DJ. The prostatic capsule: does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989;13(1):21–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bostwick DG, Liu L, Brawer MK, et al. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Rev Urol. 2004;6:171–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ, et al. Contributors to the UCL Hospitals’ Trust Radical Prostatectomy Database. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU Int. 2002;89:886–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bouyé S, Potiron E, Puech P, et al. Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate. 2009;69:105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Buschemeyer 3rd WC, Hamilton RJ, Aronson WJ, et al. Is a positive bladder neck margin truly a T4 lesion in the prostate specific antigen era? Results from the SEARCH Database. J Urol. 2008;179:124–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, et al. The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chan TW, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56(5):823–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng L, Darson MF, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:1775–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chuang AY, Epstein JI. Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1201–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Marzo AM, Haffner MC, Lotan TL, Yegnasubramanian S, Nelson WG. Premalignancy in Prostate Cancer: Rethinking What we Know. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2016;9(8):648–56.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK, et al. Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens. Lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein JI. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection: the significance of margins designated as negative, closely approaching, and positive. Am J Surg Pathol. 1990;14:626–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Epstein JI. Precursor lesions to prostatic adenocarcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2009;454:1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Beltran H, et al. Proposed morphologic classification of prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(6):756–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, et al. Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term follow-up. J Urol. 1993;150:135–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(2):244–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Epstein JI, Sauvageot J. Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol. 1997;157(1):241–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Evans AJ, Humphrey PA, Belani J, et al. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of prostate: a clinicopathologic summary of 7 cases of a rare manifestation of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:684–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fine SW, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A, et al. Anatomy of the anterior prostate and extraprostatic space: a contemporary surgical pathology analysis. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fine SW, Reuter VE. Anatomy of the prostate revisited: implications for prostate biopsy and zonal origins of prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):142–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, et al. The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2008;54:581–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grignon DJ. Unusual subtypes of prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(3):316–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:1528–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hammerich KH, Ayala GE, Wheeler TM (2009) Anatomy of the prostate gland and surgical pathology of prostate cancer. Cambridge University 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  31. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B, et al. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:411–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Humphrey PA. Histological variants of prostatic carcinoma and their significance. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):59–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Izard JP, True LD, May P, et al. Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(3):333–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Jeetle SS, Fisher G, Yang ZH, et al. Neuroendocrine differentiation does not have independent prognostic value in conservatively treated prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2012;461(2):103–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Importance of reporting the Gleason Score at the positive surgical margin site: analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol. 2016;195(2):337–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY. Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer. 1985;56:1566–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Krijnen JL, Janssen PJ, Ruizeveld de Winter JA, et al. Do neuroendocrine cells in human prostate cancer express androgen receptor? Histochemistry. 1993;100:393–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D et al. Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(6):630–6

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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(3):457–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 2010;105:1231–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lu J, Wirth GJ, Wu S, et al. A close surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of recurrence. J Urol. 2012;188(1):91–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):26–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McNeal JE. Normal histology of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol. 1988;12:619–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini: morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:802–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Merrimen JL, Jones G, Srigley JR. Is high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia still a risk factor for adenocarcinoma in the era of extended biopsy sampling? Pathology. 2010;42(4):325–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Moch H, Humphrey PA., Ulbright TM, Reuter, VE (2016) WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. International Agency for Research on Cancer

    Google Scholar 

  47. Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Santinelli A, et al. Incidentally detected prostate cancer in cystoprostatectomies: pathological and morphometric comparison with clinically detected cancer in totally embedded specimens. Hum Pathol. 2005;36(6):646–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Moreira DM, Bostwick DG, Andriole GL, et al. Baseline prostate atrophy is associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1241–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Moreira DM, Nickel JC, Andriole GL, Castro-Santamaria R, Freedland SJ. Greater extent of prostate inflammation in negative biopsies is associated with lower risk of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy: results from the REDUCE study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(2):180–4.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bourke L et al (2016). Members of the EAU Guidelines Panel on Prostate Cancer. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Pocket Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Munich 2016. ISBN 978-90-79754-86-1.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Muraoka K, Hinata N, Morizane S, et al. Site-dependent and interindividual variations in Denonvilliers’ fascia: a histological study using donated elderly male cadavers. BMC Uro. 2015;15:42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Myers RP, Cheville JC, Pawlina W. Making anatomic terminology of the prostate and contiguous structures clinically useful: historical review and suggestions for revision in the 21st century. Clin Anat. 2010;23:18–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nadal R, Schweizer M, Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI, Eisenberger MA. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(4):213–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. O’Brien BA, Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, et al. A post-radical-prostatectomy nomogram incorporating new pathological variables and interaction terms for improved prognosis. BJU Int. 2011;107:389–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1995;154:1818–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Osunkoya AO, Nielsen ME, Epstein JI. Prognosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy: a study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(3):468–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Park YH, Jeong CW, Lee SE. A comprehensive review of neuroanatomy of the prostate. Prostate Int. 2013;1(4):139–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Pickup M, Van der Kwast TH. My approach to intraductal lesions of the prostate gland. J Clin Pathol. 2010;60:856–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2010;184:1328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(9):1346–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):592–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Schelling LA, Williamson SR, Zhang S, et al. Frequent TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement in prostatic small cell carcinoma detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: the superiority of fluorescence in situ hybridization over ERG immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(10):2227–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Seipel AH, Wiklund F, Wiklund NP, Egevad L. Histopathological features of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate in 1,051 radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2013;462(4):429–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sobin LH, Gospodariwicz M, Wittekind C (2009) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK International Union Against Cancer (UICC) 243–248

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 1999;281:1395–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182:357–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Stolzenburg JU, Schwalenberg T, Horn LC, et al. Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):629–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sung MT, Eble JN, Cheng L. Invasion of fat justifies assignment of stage pT3a in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Pathology. 2006;38(4):309–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Sung MT, Lin H, Koch MO, et al. Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence: a new proposal for the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:311–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tamas EF, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(8):980–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tavora F, Epstein JI. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia like ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(7):1060–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Têtu B, Srigley JR, Boivin JC, Dupont A, et al. Effect of combination endocrine therapy (LHRH agonist and flutamide) on normal prostate and prostatic adenocarcinoma. A histopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15:111–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 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(9):1610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 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;48:1318–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:16–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Viers BR, Sukov WR, Gettman MT, et al. Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Vis AN, Roemeling S, Kranse R, et al. Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2007;51:931–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57(2):179–192

    Google Scholar 

  80. Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R et al. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):301–11.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Watts K, Li J, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M. Incidence and clinicopathological characteristics of intraductal carcinoma detected in prostate biopsies: a prospective cohort study. Histopathology. 2013;63(4):574–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:856–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, et al. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2002;60:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Should pathologists routinely report prostate tumor volume? The prognostic value of tumor volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:821–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2702–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhao T, Liao B, Yao J, et al. Is there any prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma of prostate in initial diagnosed aggressively metastatic prostate cancer? Prostate. 2015;75:225–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    S. Prendeville & T. H. Van der Kwast

Authors
  1. S. Prendeville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. H. Van der Kwast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Albert Michallon, Grenoble, France

    Michel Bolla

  2. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Hendrik van Poppel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Prendeville, S., Van der Kwast, T.H. (2017). Anatomo-pathology. In: Bolla, M., van Poppel, H. (eds) Management of Prostate Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42769-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42769-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42768-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42769-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation