Prognostic factors in prostate cancer - College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

BACKGROUND: Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence and taking into account the expert opinions of the Prostate Working Group members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Factors were ranked according to the previous College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic importance and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that have been extensively studied biologically and clinically but whose importance remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected pertaining to existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Factors ranked in category I included preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level, TNM stage grouping, histologic grade as Gleason score, and surgical margin status. Category II factors included tumor volume, histologic type, and DNA ploidy. Factors in category III included perineural invasion, neuroendocrine differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors, proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, apoptosis genes, etc)

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive form of invasive carcinoma and should be graded

Infiltration of the prostatic ducts by prostatic adenocarcinoma occurs relatively frequently, being most commonly associated with high grade disease. It is now recognised that intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP) has an associated poor prognosis and this is reflected in its histological, molecular and immunohistochemical features. The current recommendation of the World Health Organization is that IDCP not be taken into consideration when grading prostate adenocarcinoma. It is apparent that Gleason did not differentiate between IDCP and stromal invasive carcinoma when developing and validating his grading system, and recent studies suggest that the incorporation of IDCP grading into the overall grading of the specimen provides additional prognostic information. © 2019 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia52219219

Handling and staging of renal cell carcinoma the international society of urological pathology consensus (ISUP) conference recommendations

The International Society of Urologic Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference on renal cancer, through working group 3, focused on the issues of staging and specimen handling of renal tumors. The conference was preceded by an online survey of the International Society of Urologic Pathology members, and the results of this were used to inform the focus of conference discussion. On formal voting a Z65% majority was considered a consensus agreement. For specimen handling it was agreed that with radical nephrectomy specimens the initial cut should be made along the long axis and that both radical and partial nephrectomy specimens should be inked. It was recommended that sampling of renal tumors should follow a general guideline of sampling 1 block/cm with a minimum of 3 blocks (subject to modification as needed in individual cases). When measuring a renal tumor, the length of a renal vein/caval thrombus should not be part of the measurement of the main tumor mass. In cases with multiple tumors, sampling should include at a minimum the 5 largest tumors. There was a consensus that perinephric fat invasion should be determined by examining multiple perpendicular sections of the tumor/perinephric fat interface and by sampling areas suspicious for invasion. Perinephric fat invasion was defined as either the tumor touching the fat or extending as irregular tongues into the perinephric tissue, with or without desmoplasia. It was agreed upon that renal sinus invasion is present when the tumor is in direct contact with the sinus fat or the loose connective tissue of the sinus, clearly beyond the renal parenchyma, or if there is involvement of any endothelium-lined spaces within the renal sinus, regardless of the size. When invasion of the renal sinus is uncertain, it was recommended that at least 3 blocks of the tumor-renal sinus interface should be submitted. If invasion is grossly evident, or obviously not present (small peripheral tumor), it was agreed that only 1 block was needed to confirm the gross impression. Other recommendations were that the renal vein margin be considered positive only when there is adherent tumor visible microscopically at the actual margin. When a specimen is submitted separately as "caval thrombus, "the recommended sampling strategy is to take 2 or more sections to look for the adherent caval wall tissue. It was also recommended that uninvolved renal parenchyma be sampled by including normal parenchyma with tumor and normal parenchyma distant from the tumor. There was consensus that radical nephrectomy specimens should be examined for the purpose of identifying lymph nodes by dissection/palpation of the fat in the hilar area only; however, it was acknowledged that lymph nodes are found i