Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostik radikaler Prostatektomiepräparate

Ergebnisse der Konsensuskonferenz der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Urologische Pathologie 2009

Diagnostics of radical prostatectomy specimens

Results of the 2009 consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Pathologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Konsensuskonferenz der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Urologische Pathologie (ISUP) hat im Jahr 2009 Empfehlungen für die Standardisierung der Befundung radikaler Prostatektomiepräparate herausgegeben. Themen der Konferenz waren Präparatbearbeitung, T2-Subklassifizierung, Prostatakarzinomvolumen, extraprostatische Tumormanifestation, lymphovaskuläre Invasion, Samenblaseninfiltration, Lymphknotenmetastasen sowie chirurgische Schnittränder. Dieser Übersichtsartikel fasst wesentliche Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen dieser Konsensuskonferenz zusammen.

Abstract

The 2009 consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) made recommendations for standardization of handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. The conference topics were preparation of specimens, the T2 subclassification, prostate cancer volume, extraprostatic tumor extent, lymphovascular invasion, seminal vesicle infiltration, lymph node metastases and surgical margins. This review article presents the essential results and recommendations of this conference.

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

Literatur

  1. Anonymous (2010) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Springer, Chicago

  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. Boormans JL, Wildhagen MF, Bangma CH et al (2008) Histopathological characteristics of lymph node metastases predict cancer-specific survival in node-positive prostate cancer. BJU Int 102:1589–1593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng L, Bergstralh EJ, Cheville JC et al (1998) Cancer volume of lymph node metastasis predicts progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1491–1500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng L, Pisansky TM, Ramnani DM et al (2000) Extranodal extension in lymph node-positive prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 13:113–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Egevad L, Srigley JR, Delahunt B (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: rationale and organization. Mod Pathol 24:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (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, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L et al (2005) Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl (216):34–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR et al (1998) The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Bladder Consensus Conference Committee. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1435–1448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Potter SR et al (2000) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology 56:283–288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71:3582–3593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez JR, Laudano MA, Mccann TR et al (2008) A review of high-risk prostate cancer and the role of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies. World J Urol 26:475–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Herman CM, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW et al (2000) Lymphovascular invasion as a predictor of disease progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 24:859–863

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Humphrey PA, Walther PJ, Currin SM et al (1991) Histologic grade, DNA ploidy, and intraglandular tumor extent as indicators of tumor progression of clinical stage B prostatic carcinoma. A direct comparison. Am J Surg Pathol 15:1165–1170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kench J, Clouston D, Delahunt B (2010) Prostate Cancer (Radical Prostatectomy) Structured Reporting Protocol. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Sydney

  16. Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM et al (2004) Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol 172:508–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. May M, Kaufmann O, Hammermann F et al (2007) Prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 99:539–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL et al (1993) The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 17:1252–1261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB et al (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1568–1576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sung MT, Lin H, Koch MO et al (2007) 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 31:311–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

  24. Van Der Kwast TH, 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  Google Scholar 

  25. Vis AN, Schroder FH, Van Der Kwast TH (2006) The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50:258–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS (1996) Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 48:80–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H et al (1995) Patterns of positive specimen margins and detectable prostate specific antigen after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 153:1565–1569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW et al (1998) Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1–2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 29:856–862

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Dank gebührt Prof. Nicolas Wernert, Prof. Sven Perner und PD Dr. Michael Majores für die kritische Durchsicht des Manuskripts.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland

    G. Kristiansen

  2. Abteilung für Pathologie und Molekulare Medizin, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    J.R. Srigley

  3. Abteilung für Pathologie und Molekulare Medizin, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, Neuseeland

    B. Delahunt

  4. Abteilung für Onkologie und Pathologie, Karolinska Institut, Stockholm, Schweden

    L. Egevad

Authors
  1. G. Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J.R. Srigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Delahunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Egevad
    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., Srigley, J., Delahunt, B. et al. Diagnostik radikaler Prostatektomiepräparate. Pathologe 33, 337–344 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-012-1587-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-012-1587-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation