Advertisement

Anatomo-Pathology

  • Theodorus H. Van der Kwast
Chapter

Abstract

In recent years, several developments have taken place in the realm of the anatomo-pathology of the prostate. They include new insights in the anatomy of the prostate and its surrounding structures, a better understanding of potential precursor lesions for prostate cancer, while new guidelines on the pathologic grading and staging of prostate cancer have been proposed in order to improve their prognostic accuracy and to reduce interobserver variation among pathologists. 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. Above issues are addressed in this chapter.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score Bladder Neck Peripheral Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Al-Ahmadie HA, Tickoo SK, Olgac S et al (2008) Anterior-predominant prostatic tumors: zone of origin and pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 32:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoiu M, Cheng L (2010) Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol 41:781–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, REDUCE Study Group et al (2010) Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 362:1192–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Blonski J et al (2003) Zonal location of prostate cancer: significance for disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Urology 62:79–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayala GE, Muezzinoglu B, Hammerich KH et al (2011) Determining prostate cancer-specific death through quantification of stromogenic carcinoma area in prostatectomy specimens. Am J Pathol 178(1):79–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D et al (2004) Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 64(3):551–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group 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 24:39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billis A, Meirelles L, Freitas LL (2010) Mergence of partial and complete atrophy in prostate needle biopsies: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study. Virchows Arch 456:689–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bostwick DG, Liu L, Brawer MK et al (2004) High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Rev Urol 6:171–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ et al (2002) Contributors to the UCL Hospitals’ trust radical prostatectomy database. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU Int 89:886–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouyé S, Potiron E, Puech P et al (2009) Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 69:105–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brawn PN, Foster DM, Jay DW et al (1994) Characteristics of prostatic infarcts and their effect on serum prostate-specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase. Urology 44:71–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buschemeyer WC 3rd, Hamilton RJ, Aronson WJ et al (2008) Is a positive bladder neck margin truly a T4 lesion in the prostate specific antigen era? Results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 179:124–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng L, Darson MF, Bergstralh EJ et al (1999) Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 86:1775–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE et al (2005) The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23(13):2911–2917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chuang AY, Epstein JI (2008) Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 32:1201–1206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Marzo AM, DeWeese TL, Platz EA et al (2004) Pathological and molecular mechanisms of prostate carcinogenesis: implications for diagnosis, detection, prevention, and treatment. J Cell Biochem 91(3):459–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC et al (2011) Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185(3):869–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK et al (2005) Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens. Lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol 29:225–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein JI (1990) Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection: the significance of margins designated as negative, closely approaching, and positive. Am J Surg Pathol 14:626–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epstein JI (2009) Precursor lesions to prostatic adenocarcinoma. Virchows Arch 454:1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmicheal M et al (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Epstein JI, Algaba F, Allsbrook WC Jr et al (2004) Acinar adenocarcinoma in: WHO classification of tumours, pathology & genetics. Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 162–198Google Scholar
  24. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans AJ, Humphrey PA, Belani J et al (2006) Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of prostate: a clinicopathologic summary of 7 cases of a rare manifestation of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 30:684–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fine SW, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A et al (2007) Anatomy of the anterior prostate and extraprostatic space: a contemporary surgical pathology analysis. Adv Anat Pathol 14:401–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S et al (2008) 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 54:581–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grignon DJ (2004) Unusual subtypes of prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 17(3):316–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19:1528–1535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammerich KH, Ayala GE, Wheeler TM (2009) Anatomy of the prostate gland and surgical pathology of prostate cancer. Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  31. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B et al (2007) 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 8:411–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY (1985) Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 56:1566–1573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krijnen JL, Janssen PJ, Ruizeveld de Winter JA et al (1993) Do neuroendocrine cells in human prostate cancer express androgen receptor? Histochemistry 100:393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al (2008) Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 – sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 249(3):900–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N et al (2010) ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 105:1231–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsey I, Guy RJ, Warren BF (2000) Anatomy of Denonvilliers’ fascia and pelvic nerves, impotence, and implications for the colorectal surgeon. Br J Surg 87:1288–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group 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(1):26–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McNeal JE (1988) Normal histology of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 12:619–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (1996) Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini: morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 20:802–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Santinelli A et al (2005) Incidentally detected prostate cancer in cystoprostatectomies: pathological and morphometric comparison with clinically detected cancer in totally embedded specimens. Hum Pathol 36(6):646–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Myers RP, Cheville JC, Pawlina W (2010) Making anatomic terminology of the prostate and contiguous structures clinically useful: historical review and suggestions for revision in the 21st century. Clin Anat 23:18–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Brien BA, Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM et al (2011) A post-radical-prostatectomy nomogram incorporating new pathological variables and interaction terms for improved prognosis. BJU Int 107:389–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW et al (1995) Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 154:1818–1824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pickup M, Van der Kwast TH (2007) My approach to intraductal lesions of the prostate gland. J Clin Pathol 60:856–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robinson BD, Epstein JI (2010) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 184:1328–1333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sobin LH, Gospodariwicz M, Wittekind C, International Union Against Cancer (UICC) (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 243–248Google Scholar
  47. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE et al (1993) Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 71(3 Suppl):933–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM et al (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281:1395–1400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW et al (2009) Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 182:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stolzenburg JU, Schwalenberg T, Horn LC et al (2007) Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 51(3):629–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group 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 24:48–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Têtu B, Srigley JR, Boivin JC, Dupont A et al (1991) Effect of combination endocrine therapy (LHRH agonist and flutamide) on normal prostate and prostatic adenocarcinoma. A histopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 15:111–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van der Heul-Nieuwenhuijsen L, Hendriksen PJ, van der Kwast TH et al (2006) Gene expression profiling of the human prostate zones. BJU Int 98:886–897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group 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 24:16–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Villers A, McNeal JE, Freiha FS et al (1993) Invasion of Denonvilliers’ fascia in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 149:793–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Vis AN, Roemeling S, Kranse R et al (2007) Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur Urol 51:931–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ et al (2010) 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 57(2):179–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williamson SR, Zhang S, Yao JL et al (2011) ERG-TMPRSS2 rearrangement is shared by concurrent prostatic adenocarcinoma and prostatic small cell carcinoma and absent in small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: evidence supporting monoclonal origin. Mod Pathol 24(8):1120–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE et al (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60:264–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2010) Should pathologists routinely report prostate tumour volume? The prognostic value of tumour volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:821–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2011) A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185(1):121–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang XJ, Cheng L, Helpap B et al (2004) Ductal adenocarcinoma in: WHO classification of tumours, pathology & genetics. In: Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 199–201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity Health Network and University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations