Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pathology of the Benign and Malignant Diseases of the Prostate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Prostate MRI Essentials

  • 1014 Accesses

Abstract

The prostate gland, a male reproductive organ, is located posterior to the inferior symphysis pubis, superior to the urogenital diaphragm, and anterior to the rectum. McNeal has identified three zones. The transition zone surrounds the urethra between the colliculus and bladder neck; it is the usual location of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The peripheral and central zones are the most common locations of the putative preneoplastic and intra-acinar/intraductal neoplasms, such as prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (adenosis; AAH) has been considered a premalignant lesion of the transition zone; a direct transition from AAH to cancer has not been documented. Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP; also called atypical focus suspicious but not diagnostic of malignancy) is a diagnostic category and represents a microscopic growth of small acini with insufficient cytological abnormalities to warrant the diagnosis of malignancy. Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequently diagnosed noncutaneous malignant neoplasm in men. This chapter discusses the classification, grading, staging, and current definition of clinically significant PCa. Tissue biomarkers predicting upgrading and/or significant disease and tissue-based genomic tests for diagnosis and prognosis are mentioned briefly.

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
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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. McNeal JE. Normal and pathologic anatomy of prostate. Urology. 1981;17:11–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fine SW, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A, Tickoo SK, Scardino PT, Reuter VE. Anatomy of the anterior prostate and extraprostatic space. A contemporary surgical pathology analysis. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein JI, Graefen M, Montironi R, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65:303–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng L, MacLennan GT, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R. Anatomic, morphologic and genetic heterogeneity of prostate cancer: implications for clinical practice. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12:1371–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roehrborn CG. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview. Rev Urol. 2005;7(Suppl 9):S3–S14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ozayar A, Zumrutbas AE, Yaman O. The relationship between lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), diagnostic indicators of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and erectile dysfunction in patients with moderate to severely symptomatic BPH. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(4):933–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Foster CS. Pathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate Suppl. 2000;9:4–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein JI, Hutchins GM. Granulomatous prostatitis: distinction among allergic, nonspecific, and post-transurethral resection lesions. Hum Pathol. 1984;15:818–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Magri V, Boltri M, Cai T, Colombo R, Cuzzocrea S, De Visschere P, et al. Multidisciplinary approach to prostatitis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2019;90:227–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. De Marzo AM, Marchi VL, Epstein JI, Nelson WG. Proliferative inflammatory atrophy of the prostate: implications for prostatic carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol. 1999;155:1985–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bostwick DG, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Srigley JR. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. In: Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbrigh TM, Reuter VE, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC; 2016. p. 162–3.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bostwick DG, Amin MB, Dundore P, Marsh W, Schultz DS. Architectural patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol. 1993;24:298–310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Cheng L. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: its morphological and molecular diagnosis and clinical significance. BJU Int. 2011;108:1394–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Marzo AM, Haffner MC, Lotan TL, Yegnasubramanian S, Nelson WG. Premalignancy in prostate cancer: rethinking what we know. Cancer Prev Res. 2016;9:648–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol. 2006;175:820–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Herawi M, Kahane H, Cavallo C, Epstein JI. Risk of prostate cancer on first re-biopsy within 1 year following a diagnosis of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is related to the number of cores sampled. J Urol. 2006;175:121–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein JI, Oxley J, Ro JY, Van der Kwast T, Zhou M. Intraductal carcinoma. In: Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbrigh TM, Reutere VE, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC; 2016. p. 164–5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. 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 

  20. Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H, Rubin AM. A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1103–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. 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;63:574–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shah RB, Magi-Galluzzi C, Han B, Zhou M. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: relationship to prostatic carcinoma and implication for diagnosis in prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:470–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shah RB, Zhou M. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: clinical significance, differential diagnosis and current concept of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Adv Anat Pathol. 2012;19:270–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou M. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, PIN-like carcinoma, ductal carcinoma, and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S71–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Han B, Suleman K, Wang L, Siddiqui J, Sercia L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. ETS gene aberrations in atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: implications for the distinction between intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:478–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lotan TL, Gumuskaya B, Rahimi H, Hicks JL, Iwata T, Robinson BD, et al. Cytoplasmic PTEN protein loss distinguishes intraductal carcinoma of the prostate from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:587–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cheng L, Montironi R, Davidson DD, Wang M, Lopez-Beltran A, Zhang S. Molecular evidence supporting the precursor nature of atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the prostate. Mol Carcinog. 2019;58:1272–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Qian J, Bostwick DG. The extent and zonal location of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia: relationship with carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Res Pract. 1995;191:860–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang C, Montironi R, MacLennan GT, Lopez-Beltran A, Li Y, Tan PH, et al. Is atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the prostate a precursor lesion? Prostate. 2011;71:1746–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Montironi R, Scattoni V, Mazzucchelli R, Lopez-Beltran A, Bostwick DG, Montorsi F. Atypical foci suspicious but not diagnostic of malignancy in prostate needle biopsies (also referred to as “atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for but not diagnostic of malignancy”). Eur Urol. 2006;50:666–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schlesinger C, Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: predictive value for cancer in current practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1201–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Borboroglu PG, Sur RL, Roberts JL, Amling CL. Repeat biopsy strategy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation or high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial prostate needle biopsy. J Urol. 2001;166:866–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ericson KJ, Wenger HC, Rosen AM, Kiriluk KJ, Gerber GS, Paner GP, et al. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol. 2017;24:8714–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Bennett A, Butler WM, Amamovich E. Incidence, grade and distribution of prostate cancer following transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. World J Urol. 2017;35:1009–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, Carroll PR. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2001;165:1409–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, Kattan MW. Prostate. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 715–26.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, 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;40:244–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Berney DM, et al. Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbrigh TM, Reutere VE, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC; 2016. p. 138–62.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Humphrey PA. Variants of acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate mimicking benign conditions. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yaskiv O, Cao D, Humphrey PA. Microcystic adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a variant of pseudohyperplastic and atrophic patterns. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:556–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Alharbi AM, De Marzo AM, Hicks JL, Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with focal pleomorphic giant cell features: a series of 30 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42:1286–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lopez-Beltran A, Eble JN, Bostwick DG. Pleomorphic giant cell carcinoma of the prostate. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:683–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Parwani AV, Herawi M, Epstein JI. Pleomorphic giant cell adenocarcinoma of the prostate: report of 6 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:1254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Evans AJ, Humphrey PA, Belani J, van der Kwast TH, Srigley JR. 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 

  46. Fine SW. Neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S122–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:e1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Montironi R, Cimadamore A, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M. Prostate cancer grading in 2018: limitations, implementations, cribriform morphology, and biological markers. Int J Biol Markers. 2018;33:331–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. CAP Cancer Protocol Templates. 2017. http://www.cap.org

  54. NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines). 2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp

  55. Sanda MG, Chen RC, Crispino T, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer. In: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. 2017. http://www.auanet.org/guidelines/clinically-localized-prostate-cancer-new-(aua/astro/suo-guideline-2017)

  56. Montironi R, Cheng L, Cimadamore A, Lopez-Beltran A. Prostate cancer grading: are we heading towards grade grouping version 2? Eur Urol. 2019;75:32–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chun FK, Briganti A, Lebeau T, Benayoun S, Lebeau T, Ramirez A, et al. The 2002 AJCC pT2 substages confer no prognostic information on the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49:273–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Eichelberger LE, Cheng L. Does pT2b prostate carcinoma exist? Critical appraisal of the 2002 TNM classification of prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:2573–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ettel M, Kong M, Lee P, Zhou M, Melamed J, Deng FM. Modification of the pT2 substage classification in prostate adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2016;56:57–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kordan Y, Chang SS, Salem S, Cookson MS, Clark PE, Davis R, et al. Pathological stage T2 subgroups to predict biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182:2291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, 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 

  62. Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol. 2011;186:790–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB. Updates in the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging classification for urologic cancers. Eur Urol. 2018;73:560–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Bhindi B, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Mason RJ, Gettman MT, Frank I, et al. Independent validation of the American joint committee on cancer 8th edition prostate cancer staging classification. J Urol. 2017;198:1286–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, Sartor O, Sandler HM, Amin MB, et al. Prostate cancer-major changes in the American joint committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:245–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Herden J, Heidenreich A, Wittekind C, Weissbach L. Predictive value of the UICC and AJCC 8th edition tumor-nodes-metastasis (TNM) classification for patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;56:126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271:368–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Matoso A, Epstein JI. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology. 2019;74:135–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:473–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Chua MLK, Lo W, Pintilie M, Murgic J, Lalonde E, Bhandari V, et al. A prostate cancer “Nimbosus”: genomic instability and SChLAP1 dysregulation underpin aggression of intraductal and cribriform subpathologies. Eur Urol. 2017;72:665–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Cuzick J, Swanson GP, Fisher G, Brothman AR, Berney DM, Reid JE, et al. Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:245–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014;66:550–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nguyen JK, Magi-Galluzzi C. Unfavorable pathology, tissue biomarkers and genomic tests with clinical implications in prostate cancer management. Adv Anat Pathol. 2018;25:293–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Risbridger GP, Taylor RA, Clouston D, Sliwinski A, Thorne H, Hunter S, et al. Patient-derived Xenografts reveal that intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a prominent pathology in BRCA2 mutation carriers with prostate cancer and correlates with poor prognosis. Eur Urol. 2015;67:496–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Shore ND, Kella N, Moran B, Boczko J, Bianco FJ, Crawford ED, et al. Impact of the cell cycle progression test on physician and patient treatment selection for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:612–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Trock BJ, Fedor H, Gurel B, Jenkins RB, Knudsen BS, Fine SW, et al. PTEN loss and chromosome 8 alterations in Gleason grade 3 prostate cancer cores predicts the presence of un-sampled grade 4 tumor: implications for active surveillance. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:764–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Carneiro A, Priante Kayano P, Gomes Barbosa ÁR, Langer Wroclawski M, Ko Chen C, Cavlini GC, et al. Are localized prostate cancer biomarkers useful in the clinical practice? Tumour Biol. 2018;40(9):1010428318799255.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Cucchiara V, Cooperberg MR, Dall'Era M, Lin DW, Montorsi F, Schalken JA, et al. Genomic markers in prostate cancer decision making. Eur Urol. 2018;73:572–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kretschmer A, Tilki D. Biomarkers in prostate cancer – current clinical utility and future perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017;120:180–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Polytechnic University of the Marche Region (Ancona), School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, Ancona, Marche, Italy

    Rodolfo Montironi, Roberta Mazzucchelli, Alessia Cimadamore & Marina Scarpelli

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Cordoba, Unit of Anatomic Pathology, Cordoba, Spain

    Antonio Lopez-Beltran

  3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Liang Cheng

Authors
  1. Rodolfo Montironi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberta Mazzucchelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessia Cimadamore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marina Scarpelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonio Lopez-Beltran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liang Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodolfo Montironi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Temel Tirkes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Montironi, R., Mazzucchelli, R., Cimadamore, A., Scarpelli, M., Lopez-Beltran, A., Cheng, L. (2020). Pathology of the Benign and Malignant Diseases of the Prostate. In: Tirkes, T. (eds) Prostate MRI Essentials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45935-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45935-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45934-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45935-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation