Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting

  • Review and Perspectives
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) was formed in 2011 to harmonise the datasets, protocols and checklists for pathological reporting of various cancers and develop internationally agreed upon, evidence-based datasets. A dataset for prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens was developed in 2011–2012 as part of a pilot project; however, it required substantial revision following the ISUP Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading in 2014, the publication of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs in 2016, and the 8th edition of the Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system in late 2016. This article presents the up-to-date, evidence-based ICCR dataset and associated commentary for reporting prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. PubMed and Google search engines were used to review the published literature on the subject, and the dataset was developed in line with the previously published ICCR framework for the development of cancer datasets. Substantial changes have been incorporated into the second edition of the ICCR prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy) dataset. These include revisions to prostate cancer grading, reporting of intraductal carcinoma of prostate and surgical margins, among others. Up-to-date cancer datasets underpin structured reporting and facilitate the production of consistent and accurate pathological data for patient care as well as comparisons between different cohorts and populations internationally.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cancer Research UK,(2014). Available at: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer. Accessed 14 Nov 2018

  3. Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA (1998) The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 51(6):481–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mathers M, Shrimankar J, Scott D, Charlton F, Griffith C, Angus B (2001) The use of a standard proforma in breast cancer reporting. J Clin Pathol 54(10):809–811

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Srigley JR, McGowan T, MacLean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S, Sawka C Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99(8):517–524

  6. Gill AJ, Johns AL, Eckstein R, Samra JS, Kaufman A, Chang DK, Merrett ND, Cosman PH, Smith RC, Biankin AV, Kench JG, New South Wales Pancreatic Cancer Network (NSWPCN) (2009) Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens. Pathology 41(2):161–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Markel SF, Hirsch SD (1991) Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol 22(8):807–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Srigley J, Lankshear S, Brierley J, McGowan T, Divaris D, Yurcan M, Rossi R, Yardley T, King MJ, Ross J, Irish J, McLeod R, Sawka C (2013) Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators. J Oncol Pract 9(5):e255–e261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scolyer RA, Judge MJ, Evans A, Frishberg DP, Prieto VG, Thompson JF, Trotter MJ, Walsh MY, Walsh NMG, Ellis DW (2013) Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Am J Surg Pathol 37(12):1797–1814

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. McCluggage WG, Colgan T, Duggan M et al (2012) Data set for reporting of endometrial carcinomas: recommendations from the International cCollaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) between United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol 32(1):45–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kench J, Delahunt B, Griffiths DF et al (2013) Dataset for reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Histopathology 62(2):203–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones KD, Churg A, Henderson DW, Hwang DM, Wyatt JM, Nicholson AG, Rice AJ, Washington MK, Butnor KJ Data set for reporting of lung carcinomas: recommendations from International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137(8):1054–1062

  13. International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Guidelines for the development of ICCR datasets. Available from: http://www.iccr-cancer.org/datasets/dataset-development. Accessed 1 Mar 2017

  14. McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA, Davidson B, Gilks CB, Hollema H, Ledermann JA, Matias-Guiu X, Mikami Y, Stewart CJ, Vang R, Hirschowitz L, International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Dataset for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Path 2015; 28(8):1101–1122

  15. Churg A, Attanoos R, Borczuk AC, Chirieac LR, Galateau-Sallé F, Gibbs A, Henderson D, Roggli V, Rusch V, Judge MJ, Srigley JR Dataset for reporting of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016; 140(10):1104–1110

  16. Nicholson AG, Detterbeck F, Marx A et al (2017) Dataset for reporting of hymic epithelial tumours: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Histopathology 7(4):522–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R (2009) Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011; 24(1):6–15

  19. Moch H, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM (eds) (2016) World Health Organization Classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of the urinary system and male genital organs. 4th edition. IARC Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  20. Christensen WN, Steinberg G, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (1991) Prostatic duct adenocarcinoma. Findings at radical prostatectomy. Cancer 67(8):2118–2124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rubenstein JH, Katin MJ, Mangano MM, Dauphin J, Salenius SA, Dosoretz DE, Blitzer PH Small cell anaplastic carcinoma of the prostate: seven new cases, review of the literature, and discussion of a therapeutic strategy. Am J Clin Oncol 1997; 20(4):376–380

  22. Dundore PA, Cheville JC, Nascimento AG, Farrow GM, Bostwick DG (1995) Carcinosarcoma of the prostate. Report of 21 cases. Cancer 76(6):1035–1042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hansel DE, Epstein JI (2006) Sarcomatoid carcinoma of the prostate. A study of 42 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 30(10):1316–1321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Osunkoya AO, Epstein JI (2007) Primary mucin-producing urothelial-type adenocarcinoma of prostate: report of 15 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31(9):1323–1329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Curtis MW, Evans AJ, Srigley J (2005) Mucin-producing urothelial-type adenocarcinoma of prostate: report of two cases of a rare and diagnostically challenging entity. Mod Pathol 18(4):585–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, 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(9):1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) 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 41(4):e1–e7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) 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 40(2):244–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1990) Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66(6):1225–1233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281(15):1395–1400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, Sundelin B, Nilsson B, Egevad L (2002) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 168(5):2006–2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, Koch MO (2007) Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 110(9):1967–1972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC (1996) Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 20(3):286–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K, Ohori M, Scardino PT Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998; 29(8):856–862

  35. Sakr WA, Wheeler TM, Blute M, Bodo M, Calle-Rodrigue R, Henson DE, Mostofi FK, Seiffert J, Wojno K, Zincke H (1996) Staging and reporting of prostate cancer-sampling of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Cancer 78(2):366–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, Troncoso P, Grignon DJ (1989) The prostatic capsule: does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 13(1):21–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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(8):1201–1206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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(1):26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. Sung MT, Lin H, Koch MO, Davidson DD, Cheng L (2007) Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence: a new protocol for the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 31(2):311–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Debras B, Guillonneau B, Bougaran J, Chambon E, Vallancien G (1998) Prognostic significance of seminal vesicle invasion on the radical prostatectomy specimen. Rationale for seminal vesicle biopsies. Eur Urol 33(3):271–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R et al (1998) Prognostic indicators in patients with seminal vesicle involvement following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 160(3):802–806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Montironi R, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group (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(1):39–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1999) Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(5):1499–1507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Partin AW, Piantadosi S, Sanda MG et al (1995) Selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence for experimental adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy. Urology 45(5):831–838

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2003) Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probablity following radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer. J Urol 169(2):517–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM (1993) The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 17(12):1252–1261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Potter SR, Walsh PC (2000) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology 56(2):283–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Potter SR, Epstein JI, Partin AW (2000) Seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer: prognostic significance and therapeutic implications. Rev Urol 2(3):190–195

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Swanson GP, Goldman B, Tangen CM, Chin J, Messing E, Canby-Hagino E, Forman JD, Thompson IM, Crawford ED, Southwest Oncology Group 8794 (2008) The prognostic impact of seminal vesicle involvement found at prostatectomy and the effects of adjuvant radiation: data from southwest oncology group 8794. J Urol 180(6):2453–2457

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA (2001) Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 91(8):1414–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pierorazio PM, Epstein JI, Humphreys E, Han M, Walsh PC, Partin AW (2010) The significance of a positive bladder neck margin after radical prostatectomy: the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 designation is not warranted. J Urol 183(1):151–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhou M, Reuther AM, Levin HS, Falzarano SM, Kodjoe E, Myles J, Klein E, Magi-Galluzzi C Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factor. Mod Pathol 2009; 22(3):385–392

  54. Dash A, Sanda MG, Yu M, Taylor JM, Fecko A, Rubin MA (2002) Prostate cancer involving the bladder neck: recurrence-free survival and implications for AJCC staging modification. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Urology 60(2):276–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yossepowitch O, Engelstein D, Konichezky M, Sella A, Livne PM, Baniel J (2000) Bladder neck involvement at radical prostatectomy: positive margins or advanced T4 disease? Urology 56(3):448–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Poulos CK, Koch MO, Eble JN, Daggy JK, Cheng L (2004) Bladder neck invasion is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence. Cancer 101(7):1563–1568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rodriguez-Covarrubias F, Larre S, Dahan M et al (2009) Prognostic significance of microscopic bladder neck invasion in prostate cancer. BJU Int 103(6):758–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Edge SE, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) (2010) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 7th ed. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  59. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL et al (eds) (2017) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2016) UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell

  61. Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C (eds) (2009) International Union against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  62. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL, Zincke H (1997) Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 50(5):733–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al (2005) Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174(3):903–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, Hohenfellner M (2008) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int 102(10):1413–1418

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, Finelli A, Jewett M, Zlotta A, Nesbitt M, Lockwood G, Trachtenberg J Impact of a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol 2010; 183(1):145–150

  66. Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A, Salomon L (2011) Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int 107(11):1748–1754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, Lin DW (2010) Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 183(6):2213–2218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JRS, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast T, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Epstein JI, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group (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(1):48–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS (2006) Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 175(1):140–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E et al (2003) Variation among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 170(6 Pt 1):2292–2295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N, Vickers AJ, Slawin KM, Wheeler TM, Reuter VE, Scardino PT (2007) Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 70(5):965–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Epstein JI, Sauvageot J (1997) Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol 157(1):241–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Cheng L (2005) Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol 29(2):225–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 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(7):626–632

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Gupta R, O'Connell R, Haynes AM, Stricker PD, Barrett W, Turner JJ, Delprado W, Horvath LG, Kench JG (2015) Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostatic carcinoma: is its proximity to the surgical margin or Gleason score important. BJU Int 116(3):343–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS (1999) Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 4(54):682–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V et al (2015) Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 33(3):109.e107–109.e113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, Egevad L, Nilsson A, Carlsson S, Jonsson M, Adding C, Hosseini A, Steineck G, Wiklund P (2015) The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int 115(1):106–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Magi-Galluzzi C, Sanderson HBS, Epstein JI (2003) Atypia in non-neoplastic prostate glands after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: duration of atypia and relation to type of radiotherapy. Am J Surg Pathol 27(2):206–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Herr HW, Whitmore WF Jr (1982) Significance of prostatic biopsies after radiation therapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate 3(4):339–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Grignon DJ, Sakr WA (1995) Histologic effects of radiation therapy and total androgen blockage on prostate cancer. Cancer 75:1837–1841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Vailancourt L, Ttu B, Fradet Y et al (1996) Effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (combined androgen blockade) on normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma. A randomized study. Am J Surg Pathol 20(1):86–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Montironi R, Magi-Galluzzi C, Muzzonigro G, Prete E, Polito M, Fabris G (1994) Effects of combination endocrine treatment on normal prostate, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Pathol 47(10):906–913

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Civantos F, Marcial MA, Banks ER, Ho CK, Speights VO, Drew PA, Murphy WM, Soloway MS (1995) Pathology of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate carcinoma. A comparative study of 173 patients. Cancer 75(7):1634–1641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Bostwick DG, Meiers I (2007) Diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma after therapy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 131(3):360–371

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Guess HA, Gormley GJ, Stoner E, Oesterling JE (1996) The effect of finasteride on prostate specific antigen: review of available data. J Urol 155(1):3–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Oesterling JE, Roy J, Agha A et al (1997) Biologic variability of prostate-specific antigen and its usefulness as a marker for prostate cancer: effects of finasteride. The Finasteride PSA Study Group. Urology 50(1):13–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Marberger M, Freedland SJ, Andriole GL, Emberton M, Pettaway C, Montorsi F, Teloken C, Rittmaster RS, Somerville MC, Castro R (2012) Usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise as a marker of prostate cancer in men treated with dutasteride: lessons from the REDUCE study. BJU Int 109(8):1162–1169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Andriole GL, Humphrey P, Ray P et al (2004) Effect of the dual 5alpha-reductase inhibitor dutasteride on markers of tumor regression in prostate cancer. J Urol 172(3):915–919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC (1993) Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol 149(6):1478–1481

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM, Ohori M (2004) Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol 172(2):508–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LALM, Hulsbergen-vandeKaa CA (2008) Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic factor in high-risk localised prostate cancer. World J Urol 26(3):237–241

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2010) Should pathologist routinely report prostate tumor volume? The prognostic value of tumor volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57(5):735–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Dvorak T, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, Richie JP, D’Amico AV (2005) Maximal tumor diameter and the risk of PSA failure in men with specimen-confined prostate cancer. Urology 66(5):1024–1028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad L, Delahunt B, ISUP Prostate Cancer Group (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(1):16–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Walsh PC (1988) Tumor volume versus percentage of specimen involved by tumor correlated with progression in stage a prostatic cancer. J Urol 139(5):980–984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Partin AW, Epstein JI, Cho KR, Gittelsohn AM, Walsh PC (1989) Morphometric measurement of tumor volume and per cent of gland involvement as predictors of pathological stage in clinical stage B prostate cancer. J Urol 141(2):341–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60(2):264–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D'Amico AV (1989) Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Validation in a cohort of 434 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 111(5):641–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Miyai K, Divatia MK, Shen SS, Miles BJ, Ayala AG, Ro JY (2014) Heterogeneous clinicopathological features of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison between “precursor-like” and “regular type” lesions. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7(5):2518–2526

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Zhou M (2013) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: the whole story. Pathology 45(6):533–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 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(7):1103–1109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19(12):1528–1535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (1996) Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 20(7):802–814

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, Saito AM, Sassa N, Ishida R, Hirabayashi H, Yoshino Y, Hattori R, Gotoh M (2014) Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 74(6):680–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Kryvenko ON, Gupta NS, Virani N, Schultz D, Gomez J, Amin A, Lane Z, Epstein JI (2013) Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate with lymph node metastases: analysis of 184 radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(5):610–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, Chan DY, Trock BJ, Walsh PC, Partin AW (2001) Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 58(5):746–751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Kumano M, Miyake H, Muramaki M, Kurahashi T, Takenaka A, Fujisawa M (2009) Adverse prognostic impact of capsular incision at radical prostatectomy for Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 41(3):581–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Shuford MD, Cookson MS, Chang SS et al (2004) Adverse prognostic significance of capsular incision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 172(1):119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2007) The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 178(4 Pt. 1):1306–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes AM, Chatfield M, Stricker PD, Turner JJ, Delprado W, Henshall SM, Sutherland RL, Kench JG (2012) High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 109(12):1794–1800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS (1996) Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 48(1):80–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS (2011) Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology 77(6):1409–1414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L (2007) The relationship between the extent of the surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 38(8):1207–1211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G, Zagaja G, Shalhav A, Eggener S (2009) Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol 182(1):139–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. van Oort IM, Bruins HM, Kiemeney LA, Knipscheer BC, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA (2010) The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology 56(4):464–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2010) Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology 76(5):1206–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA (2010) The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy specimens is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 34(7):994–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2015) Importance of reporting the Gleason score at the positive surgical margin site: an analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol 195(2):337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Herman CM, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM (2000) Lymphovascular invasion as a predictor of disease progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 24(6):859–863

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Cheng L, Jones TD, Lin H et al (2005) Lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 174(6):2181–2185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. van den Ouden D, Hop WCJ, Kranse R, Schroder FH (1997) Tumour control according to pathological variables in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma of the prostate. Brit J Urol 79(2):203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. van den Ouden D, Kranse R, Hop WC, van der Kwast TH, Schroder FH (1998) Microvascular invasion in prostate cancer: prognostic significance in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma. Urol Int 60(1):17–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Loeb S, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JAV, Han M, Gashti SN, Yang XJ, Catalona WJ (2006) Lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens: prediction of adverse prognostic features and biochemical progression. Urology 68(1):99–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Yee DS, Shariat SF, Lowrance WT, Maschino AC, Savage CJ, Cronin AM, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2011) Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 108(4):502–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. May M, Kaufmann O, Hammermann F, Siegsmund M (2007) Prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 99(3):539–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Cheng L, Bergstralh EJ, Cheville JC, Slezak J, Corica FA, Zincke H, Blute ML, Bostwick DG Cancer volume of lymph node metastasis predicts progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22(12):1491–1500

  128. Boormans JL, Wildhagen MF, Bangma CH, Verhagen PC, van Leenders GJ Histopathological characteristics of lymph node metastases predict cancer-specific survival in node-positive prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 102(11):1589–1593

  129. Sgrignoli AR, Walsh PC, Steinberg GD, Steiner MS, Epstein JI (1994) Prognostic factors in men with stage D1 prostate cancer: identification of patients less likely to have prolonged survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 152(4):1077–1081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (2013–18). Histopathology Reporting Guides for Cancer Specimens. Available at: http://www.iccr-cancer.org/datasets. Accessed 28 Oct 2016

  131. Baras AS, Nelson JB, Han M, Parwani AV, Epstein JI (2017) The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups. Hum Pathol 63:27–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner J, Horvath LG, Kench JG (2017) Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up. BJU Int 120(5):651–658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Contribution statement

James Kench, Meagan Judge, John Srigley and Lars Egevad conceived and designed the dataset, edited and reviewed the manuscript. Brett Delahunt, Peter Humphrey, Glen Kristiansen, John Oxley, Krishan Rasiah, Hiroyuki Takahashi, Kirol Trpkov, Murali Varma, Thomas Wheeler and Ming Zhou provided analysis of the published literature, edited and reviewed the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication. James Kench and Lars Egevad take full responsibility for the work as a whole, including the dataset design and the decision to submit and publish the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia

    James G. Kench

  2. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Meagan Judge

  3. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

    Brett Delahunt

  4. Yale Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Peter A. Humphrey

  5. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Glen Kristiansen

  6. Department of Cellular Pathology, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK

    Jon Oxley

  7. Department of Urology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia

    Krishan Rasiah

  8. Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroyuki Takahashi

  9. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary Laboratory Services, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Kiril Trpkov

  10. Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

    Murali Varma

  11. Department of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Thomas M. Wheeler

  12. Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Ming Zhou

  13. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    John R. Srigley

  14. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Lars Egevad

Authors
  1. James G. Kench
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meagan Judge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brett Delahunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter A. Humphrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Glen Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jon Oxley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Krishan Rasiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hiroyuki Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kiril Trpkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Murali Varma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Thomas M. Wheeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ming Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John R. Srigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Lars Egevad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James G. Kench.

Ethics declarations

Review type article - No ethics committee/institutional review board approval required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Part of the Topical Collection entitled ‘International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting - Collection’

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kench, J.G., Judge, M., Delahunt, B. et al. Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: updated recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Virchows Arch 475, 263–277 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02574-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02574-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation