Variations in activin receptor, inhibin/activin subunit and follistatin mRNAs in human prostate tumour tissues

The possible role of activin in the regulation of malignant prostatic growth was studied using RNAase protection assays of activin receptors, inhibin/activin subunits and follistatin mRNAs in the human prostatic carcinoma cell lines LNCaP-FGC, -R and -LNO, in human prostatic carcinoma xenografts and in human prostatic tissue. Activin receptor types IA (ActRIA), IB (ActRIB), IIA (ActRIIA) and IIB (ActRIIB) mRNAs were generally expressed in prostate pithelial cells, with significantly lower levels of ActRIB mRNA in prostate tumour aterial when compared to non-malignant tissue (P< 0.05; Mann–Whitney U -test). Inhibin/activin βA- and βB-subunit mRNA expression was also found in prostate tissue. Androgen-independent xenografts expressed significantly lower amounts of βB-subunit mRNA when compared to androgen-dependent xenografts (P< 0.05). While βB-subunit mRNA was expressed by LNCaP-FGC and -LNO cells, virtually no expression was found in the androgen-independent LNCaP-R line. Inhibin α-subunit mRNA levels were low or undetectable in all samples investigated. Follistatin mRNA was undetectable in LNCaP-sublines, while low levels were found in prostatic tissues. In androgen-independent LNCaP-R cells, activin inhibited cell growth in a dose-dependent manner. These results suggest that prostate tumour progression is accompanied by a decrease of the inhibitory effect of locally produced activin by either a decrease in the expression of activin βB-subunit mRNA or by a decrease of ActRIB mRNA levels. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers: IV: Current and Future Utilization of Molecular-Genetic Tests for Testicular Germ Cell Tumors

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) organized a Consultation Conference in March 2019 dealing with applications of molecular pathology in Urogenital Pathology, including testicular tumors (with a focus on germ cell tumors [GCTs]), preceded by a survey among its members to get insight into current practices in testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) diagnostics and adoption of the ISUP immunohistochemical guidelines published in 2014. On the basis of the premeeting survey, the most commonly used immunomarker panel includes OCT3/4, placental alkaline phosphate, D2-40, SALL4, CD117, and CD30 for GCTs and the documentation of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). Molecular testing, specifically 12p copy gain, is informative to distinguish non-GCNIS versus GCNIS related GCTs, and establishing germ cell origin of tumors both in the context of primary and metastatic lesions. Other molecular methodologies currently available but not widely utilized for TGCTs include genome-wide and targeted approaches for specific genetic anomalies, P53 mutations, genomic MDM2 amplification, and detection of the p53 inactivating miR-371a-3p. The latter also holds promise as a serum marker for malignant TGCTs. This manuscript provides an update on the classification of TGCTs, and describes the current and future role of molecular-genetic testing. The following recommendations are made: (1) Presence of GCNIS should be documented in all cases along with extent of spermatogenesis; (2) Immunohistochemical staining is optional in the following scenarios: identification of GCNIS, distinguishing embryonal carcinoma from seminoma, confirming presence of yolk sac tumor and/or choriocarcinoma, and differentiating spermatocytic tumor from potential mimics; (3) Detection of gain of the short arm of chromosome 12 is diagnostic to differentiate between non-GCNIS versus GCNIS related GCTs and supportive to the germ cell origin of both primary and metastatic tumors

Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge

Through a community-driven competition, the PANDA challenge provides a curated diverse dataset and a catalog of models for prostate cancer pathology, and represents a blueprint for evaluating AI algorithms in digital pathology.Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise for diagnosing prostate cancer in biopsies. However, results have been limited to individual studies, lacking validation in multinational settings. Competitions have been shown to be accelerators for medical imaging innovations, but their impact is hindered by lack of reproducibility and independent validation. With this in mind, we organized the PANDA challenge-the largest histopathology competition to date, joined by 1,290 developers-to catalyze development of reproducible AI algorithms for Gleason grading using 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies. We validated that a diverse set of submitted algorithms reached pathologist-level performance on independent cross-continental cohorts, fully blinded to the algorithm developers. On United States and European external validation sets, the algorithms achieved agreements of 0.862 (quadratically weighted kappa, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.840-0.884) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.835-0.900) with expert uropathologists. Successful generalization across different patient populations, laboratories and reference standards, achieved by a variety of algorithmic approaches, warrants evaluating AI-based Gleason grading in prospective clinical trials

The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma

Five years after the last prostatic carcinoma grading consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), accrual of new data and modification of clinical practice require an update of current pathologic grading guidelines. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of the ISUP consensus meeting for grading of prostatic carcinoma held in September 2019, in Nice, France. Topics brought to consensus included the following: (1) approaches to reporting of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 quantities, and minor/tertiary patterns, (2) an agreement to report the presence of invasive cribriform carcinoma, (3) an agreement to incorporate intraductal carcinoma into grading, and (4) individual versus aggregate grading of systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies. Finally, developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the grading of prostatic carcinoma and future research perspectives were discussed

Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome

BACKGROUND: Gleason scoring (GS) has major deficiencies and a novel system of five grade groups (GS⩽6; 3+4; 4+3; 8; ⩾9) has been recently agreed and included in the WHO 2016 classification. Although verified in radical prostatectomies using PSA relapse for outcome, it has not been validated using prostate cancer death as an outcome in biopsy series. There is debate whether an ‘overall' or ‘worst' GS in biopsies series should be used. METHODS: Nine hundred and eighty-eight prostate cancer biopsy cases were identified between 1990 and 2003, and treated conservatively. Diagnosis and grade was assigned to each core as well as an overall grade. Follow-up for prostate cancer death was until 31 December 2012. A log-rank test assessed univariable differences between the five grade groups based on overall and worst grade seen, and using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Regression was used to quantify differences in outcome. RESULTS: Using both ‘worst' and ‘overall' GS yielded highly significant results on univariate and multivariate analysis with overall GS slightly but insignificantly outperforming worst GS. There was a strong correlation with the five grade groups and prostate cancer death. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest conservatively treated prostate cancer cohort with long-term follow-up and contemporary assessment of grade. It validates the formation of five grade groups and suggests that the ‘worst' grade is a valid prognostic measure