Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostische Histopathologie des Prostatakarzinoms

Diagnostic histopathology of prostate cancer

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Auch wenn sich die wesentlichen Kriterien zur Diagnose eines Adenokarzinoms der Prostata seit über 60 Jahren nicht geändert haben, hat sich die Pathologie des Prostatakarzinoms, seiner Nachahmer- und Vorläuferläsionen, seine Gradierung und Bearbeitung in den letzten 15 Jahren stark entwickelt und ist dabei von einer erheblichen Präzisierung und Differenzierung geprägt. Dieser Artikel spiegelt wesentliche Aspekte der Prostatadiagnostik, der Gleason-Gradierung und der TNM-gerechten Aufarbeitung von Prostatektomiepräparaten wieder.

Abstract

Even though the principal criteria for the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate have remained unchanged for more than 60 years, the diagnostic pathology of prostate cancer, its mimicking and precursor lesions, grading and processing have undergone an immense development in diagnostic precision and differentiation. This article presents the major aspects of prostate diagnostics, Gleason grading and processing of prostatectomy specimens according to the TNM system.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J (2005) 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293:2095–2101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ et al (2011) 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 24:39–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H, Rubin MA (2007) A proposal on the identification, histologic reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 131:1103–1109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB et al (2012) Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 36:838–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F et al (2013) Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62:247–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM et al (2011) Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading. Virchows Arch 459:175–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175:820–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fajardo DA, Miyamoto H, Miller JS et al (2011) Identification of Gleason pattern 5 on prostatic needle core biopsy: frequency of underdiagnosis and relation to morphology. Am J Surg Pathol 35:1706–1711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19:1528–1535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herawi M, Kahane H, Cavallo C, Epstein JI (2006) 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 175:121–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kristiansen G (2012) Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology 60:125–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kristiansen G (2009) Immunohistochemical algorithms in prostate diagnostics: what’s new? Pathologe 30(Suppl 2):146–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kristiansen G, Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L (2012) Diagnostics of radical prostatectomy specimens. Results of the 2009 consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology. Pathologe 33:337–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lu J, Wirth GJ, Wu S et al (2012) A close surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of recurrence. J Urol 188:91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B et al (2011) 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 24:26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mancuso PA, Chabert C, Chin P et al (2007) Prostate cancer detection in men with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. BJU Int 99:49–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson BD, Epstein JI (2010) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 184:1328–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 24:6–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP et al (2012) High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 109:1794–1800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 24:48–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Totten RS, Heinemann MW, Hudson PB et al (1953) Microscopic differential diagnosis of latent carcinoma of prostate. AMA Arch Pathol 55:131–141

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kwast TH van der, Amin MB, Billis A et al (2011) 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 24:16–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Carroll PR (2011) Prostate cancer: reducing overtreatment: active surveillance in low-risk disease. Nat Rev Urol 8:124–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolters T, Kwast TH van der, Vissers CJ et al (2010) False-negative prostate needle biopsies: frequency, histopathologic features, and follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 34:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Pathologie, Universität Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Straße 25, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland

    G. Kristiansen

Authors
  1. G. Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Kristiansen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kristiansen, G. Diagnostische Histopathologie des Prostatakarzinoms. Urologe 52, 933–941 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-013-3222-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-013-3222-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation