Head-to-head: how many categories for grading urothelial carcinoma?

Tumour grade is a critical prognostic parameter for guiding the management of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. In 2004, the World Health Organisation (WHO) adopted a binary (low-grade/high-grade) grading system to replace the three-tier (grades 1-3) system used to grade urothelial carcinoma since 1973. However, there is significant global variation in the grading of urothelial carcinoma. Some pathology and clinical guidelines recommend reporting of the WHO 1973 and 2004 grades in parallel, while others require reporting only of the WHO 2004 grade. This variation in pathology practice is clinically significant, because the two grading systems are not readily translatable. Some experts have proposed novel systems for grading urothelial carcinoma that involve splitting of the WHO 1973 and 2004 grade categories. The arguments for and against splitting urothelial carcinomas into two-, three- and four-grade categories are independently discussed by the three authors.

Low-risk prostate lesions: An evidence review to inform discussion on losing the "cancer" label.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) mitigates harms from overtreatment of low-risk prostate lesions. Recalibration of diagnostic thresholds to redefine which prostate lesions are considered "cancer" and/or adopting alternative diagnostic labels could increase AS uptake and continuation. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE to October 2021 for evidence on: (1) clinical outcomes of AS, (2) subclinical prostate cancer at autopsy, (3) reproducibility of histopathological diagnosis, and (4) diagnostic drift. Evidence is presented via narrative synthesis. RESULTS: AS: one systematic review (13 studies) of men undergoing AS found that prostate cancer-specific mortality was 0%-6% at 15 years. There was eventual termination of AS and conversion to treatment in 45%-66% of men. Four additional cohort studies reported very low rates of metastasis (0%-2.1%) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (0%-0.1%) over follow-up to 15 years. Overall, AS was terminated without medical indication in 1%-9% of men. Subclinical reservoir: 1 systematic review (29 studies) estimated that the subclinical cancer prevalence was 5% at <30 years, and increased nonlinearly to 59% by >79 years. Four additional autopsy studies (mean age: 54-72 years) reported prevalences of 12%-43%. Reproducibility: 1 recent well-conducted study found high reproducibility for low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis, but this was more variable in 7 other studies. Diagnostic drift: 4 studies provided consistent evidence of diagnostic drift, with the most recent (published 2020) reporting that 66% of cases were upgraded and 3% were downgraded when using contemporary diagnostic criteria compared to original diagnoses (1985-1995). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence collated may inform discussion of diagnostic changes for low-risk prostate lesions.

Measuring cancer burden in prostatic needle core biopsies: simplified assessments outperform complex measurements in assessing outcome: evidence to assist pathologist efficiency and minimize datasets.

AIMS: The optimal method of measuring cancer extent in prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty-one men with clinically localised PCa managed conservatively were reviewed with follow up. The number of positive cores (NPC), the Maximum Cancer Length in a core (MCL), Total Cancer Length (TCL), and percentage of positive cores (%+cores) was calculated and univariate and multivariate analysis performed using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), T-stage, and Gleason score. The presence of stromal gaps (SG) was recorded. Univariate models were run where SG made a difference to the MCL. All variables showed significant association with PCa death in univariate models. In multivariate models, incorporating PSA, T-stage, and Gleason score, only %+cores was a significant predictor of outcome, with a 10% increase in %+cores resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.07 (likelihood-ratio test P > Χ2  = 0.01). There were 120 patients where SG made a difference to the MCL and a total of 20 events in this group. Including SG, on univariate analysis the median MCL was 10 mm and HR was 1.16 (P = 0.007), not including SG, the median MCL was 6 mm and HR was 1.23 (P = 6.3 × 10-4 ). Inclusion or exclusion of SG made no significant difference to TCL as a predictor of outcome. CONCLUSION: Cancer extent is a strong predictor of PCa death but only %+cores added to the multivariate model. Expressed as a fraction of NPC/total number of cores, this is the simplest method of assessment, which we favour over more complicated methods in nontargeted biopsies.

Head to head: should the intraductal component of invasive prostate cancer be graded?

The reporting of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP) is controversial, with conflicting recommendations having recently been published by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS). Both recommend that isolated (pure) IDCP should not be graded. However, the ISUP recommends incorporating the IDCP component of invasive prostate cancer in the Gleason score, whereas the GUPS recommends reporting IDCP as a comment, independently of the Gleason score. The arguments for and against incorporating the IDCP component of invasive prostate cancer in the Gleason score are discussed in detail.

Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: A Guide for the Practicing Pathologist.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate gland (IDCP) is characterized by an expansile, architecturally, and cytologically atypical proliferation of prostatic epithelial cells within preexisting prostatic ducts and acini. There has been a wider recognition of IDCP by practicing pathologists since its recognition as a separate category in the World Health Organization (WHO) 2016 classification of tumours of the prostate gland. However, there is also a lack of clarity regarding the diagnosis and reporting of IDCP, which has been compounded by divergent expert recommendations regarding the grading of invasive prostate cancers associated with an intraductal component. The International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) recommends that the IDCP component should be incorporated into the Gleason score, while the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) recommends excluding it when grading prostate cancer. This review seeks to clarify some of these issues and outline a pragmatic approach to reporting IDCP, particularly in needle biopsies. Diagnostic issues and terminology for lesions falling short of IDCP but exceeding that of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed. The management of patients whose prostate biopsies show only IDCP without an associated invasive component is controversial. Some experts recommend radical therapy, while others recommend prompt repeat biopsy. An alternative clinicopathologic approach that takes into consideration the extent, histomorphology, and location (with respect to a radiologic abnormality) of IDCP, as well as radiologic features, is outlined.

Cribriform prostate cancer: Morphologic criteria enabling a diagnosis, based on survey of experts.

Among four sub-patterns of Gleason grade 4 prostate cancer, voluminous evidence supports that the cribriform pattern holds an unfavorable prognostic impact, as compared with poorly-formed, fused, or glomeruloid. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommends specifying whether invasive grade 4 cancer is cribriform. Recently, ISUP experts published a consensus definition of cribriform pattern highlighting criteria that distinguish it from mimickers. The current study aimed to analyze morphologic features separately to identify those that define the essence of the cribriform pattern. Thirty-two selected photomicrographs were classified by 12 urologic pathologists as: definitely cribriform cancer, probably cribriform, unsure, probably not cribriform, or definitely not cribriform. Consensus was defined as 9/12 agree or disagree, with ≤1 strongly supporting the opposite choice. Final consensus was achieved in 21 of 32 cases. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model with logit link was fitted to estimate effect of multiple morphologic predictors. Fisher exact test was used for categorical findings. Presence of intervening stroma precluded calling cribriform cancer (p = 0.006). Mucin presence detracted (p = 0.003) from willingness to call cribriform cancer (only 3 cases had mucin). Lumen number was associated with cribriform consensus (p = 0.0006), and all consensus cases had ≥9 lumens. Predominant papillary pattern or an irregular outer boundary detracted (p = NS). Invasive cribriform carcinoma should have absence of intervening stroma, and usually neither papillary pattern, irregular outer boundary, nor very few lumens. Setting the criteria for cribriform will help prevent over- or undercalling this important finding.

Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: An increasing volume of prostate biopsies and a worldwide shortage of urological pathologists puts a strain on pathology departments. Additionally, the high intra-observer and inter-observer variability in grading can result in overtreatment and undertreatment of prostate cancer. To alleviate these problems, we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system with clinically acceptable accuracy for prostate cancer detection, localisation, and Gleason grading. METHODS: We digitised 6682 slides from needle core biopsies from 976 randomly selected participants aged 50-69 in the Swedish prospective and population-based STHLM3 diagnostic study done between May 28, 2012, and Dec 30, 2014 (ISRCTN84445406), and another 271 from 93 men from outside the study. The resulting images were used to train deep neural networks for assessment of prostate biopsies. The networks were evaluated by predicting the presence, extent, and Gleason grade of malignant tissue for an independent test dataset comprising 1631 biopsies from 246 men from STHLM3 and an external validation dataset of 330 biopsies from 73 men. We also evaluated grading performance on 87 biopsies individually graded by 23 experienced urological pathologists from the International Society of Urological Pathology. We assessed discriminatory performance by receiver operating characteristics and tumour extent predictions by correlating predicted cancer length against measurements by the reporting pathologist. We quantified the concordance between grades assigned by the AI system and the expert urological pathologists using Cohen's kappa. FINDINGS: The AI achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0·997 (95% CI 0·994-0·999) for distinguishing between benign (n=910) and malignant (n=721) biopsy cores on the independent test dataset and 0·986 (0·972-0·996) on the external validation dataset (benign n=108, malignant n=222). The correlation between cancer length predicted by the AI and assigned by the reporting pathologist was 0·96 (95% CI 0·95-0·97) for the independent test dataset and 0·87 (0·84-0·90) for the external validation dataset. For assigning Gleason grades, the AI achieved a mean pairwise kappa of 0·62, which was within the range of the corresponding values for the expert pathologists (0·60-0·73). INTERPRETATION: An AI system can be trained to detect and grade cancer in prostate needle biopsy samples at a ranking comparable to that of international experts in prostate pathology. Clinical application could reduce pathology workload by reducing the assessment of benign biopsies and by automating the task of measuring cancer length in positive biopsy cores. An AI system with expert-level grading performance might contribute a second opinion, aid in standardising grading, and provide pathology expertise in parts of the world where it does not exist. FUNDING: Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish eScience Research Center, EIT Health.

The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10-year median follow-up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate- or high-risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low- and intermediate-/high-risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65-69 vs 50-64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate-/high-risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow-up are generalizable beyond men with low-risk PCa.

Handling and reporting of pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens in prostate and bladder cancer: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology.

AIMS: Pathological evaluation of lymphadenectomy specimens plays a pivotal role in accurate lymph node (LN) staging. Guidelines standardising the gross handling and reporting of pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in prostate (PCa) and bladder (BCa) cancer are currently lacking. This study aimed to establish current practice patterns of PLND evaluation among pathologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: A web-based survey was circulated to all members of the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP), comprising 29 questions focusing on the macroscopic handling, LN enumeration and reporting of PLND in PCa and BCa. Two hundred and eighty responses were received from pathologists throughout 23 countries. Only LNs palpable at grossing were submitted by 58%, while 39% routinely embedded the entire specimen. Average LN yield from PLND was ≥10 LNs in 56% and <10 LNs in 44%. Serial section(s) and immunohistochemistry were routinely performed on LN blocks by 42% and <1% of respondents, respectively. To designate a LN microscopically, 91% required a capsule/subcapsular sinus. In pN+ cases, 72% reported the size of the largest metastatic deposit and 94% reported extranodal extension. Isolated tumour cells were interpreted as pN1 by 77%. Deposits identified in fat without associated lymphoid tissue were reported as tumour deposits (pN0) by 36% and replaced LNs (pN+) by 27%. LNs identified in periprostatic fat were included in the PLND LN count by 69%. CONCLUSION: This study highlights variations in practice with respect to the gross sampling and microscopic evaluation of PLND in urological malignancies. A consensus protocol may provide a framework for more consistent and standardised reporting of PLND specimens.

Dataset for reporting of carcinoma of the urethra (in urethrectomy specimens): recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) is a not-for-profit organisation sponsored by the Royal Colleges of Pathologists of Australasia and the United Kingdom, the College of American Pathologists, the Canadian Association of Pathologists in association with the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, the European Society of Pathology, the American Society of Clinical Pathology and the Faculty of Pathology, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. Its goal is to produce standardised, internationally agreed-upon, evidence-based datasets for cancer pathology reporting throughout the world. This paper describes the development of a cancer dataset by the multidisciplinary ICCR expert panel for the reporting of carcinoma of the urethra in urethrectomy specimens. The dataset is composed of 'required' (mandatory) and 'recommended' (non-mandatory) elements, which are based on a review of the most recent evidence and supported by explanatory commentary. Fourteen required elements and eight recommended elements were agreed by the international dataset authoring committee to represent the essential/required (core) and recommended (non-core) information for the reporting of carcinoma of the urethra in urethrectomy specimens. Use of an internationally agreed, structured pathology dataset for reporting carcinoma of the urethra (in urethrectomy specimens) will provide the necessary information for optimal patient management, will facilitate consistent data collection and will provide valuable data for research and international benchmarking. The dataset will be valuable for those countries and institutions that are not in a position to develop their own datasets.

Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Accurate grading at the time of diagnosis if fundamental to risk stratification and treatment decision making in patients with prostate cancer. Whilst previous studies have demonstrated significant pathological upgrading and downgrading following radical prostatectomy (RP), these were based on historical cohorts and do not reflect contemporary patient selection and management practices. The aim of this national, multicentre observational study was to characterise contemporary rates and risk factors for pathological upgrading after RP in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: All RP entries on the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Radical Prostatectomy Registry database of prospectively entered cases undertaken between January 2011 and December 2016 were extracted. Those patients with full preoperative PSA, clinical stage, needle biopsy and subsequent RP pathological grade information were included. Upgrade was defined as any increase in Gleason grade from initial needle biopsy to pathological assessment of the entire surgical specimen. Statistical analysis and multivariate logistic regression were undertaken using R version 3.5 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). RESULTS: A total of 17,598 patients met full inclusion criteria. Absolute concordance between initial biopsy and pathological grade was 58.9% (n = 10,364), whilst upgrade and downgrade rates were 25.5% (n = 4489) and 15.6% (n = 2745) respectively. Upgrade rate was highest in those with D'Amico low risk compared with intermediate and high-risk disease (55.7% versus 19.1 and 24.3% respectively, P < 0.001). Although rates varied between year of surgery and geographical regions, these differences were not significant after adjusting for other preoperative diagnostic variables using multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological upgrading after RP in the UK is lower than expected when compared with other large contemporary series, despite operating on a generally higher risk patient cohort. As new diagnostic techniques that may reduce rates of pathological upgrading become more widely utilised, this study provides an important benchmark against which to measure future performance.

Utility of Pathology Imagebase for standardisation of prostate cancer grading.

AIMS: Despite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading. METHODS AND RESULTS: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently launched a reference image database supervised by experts. A panel of 24 international experts in prostate pathology reviewed independently microphotographs of 90 cases of prostate needle biopsies with cancer. A linear weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.72) and consensus was reached in 50 cases. The interobserver weighted kappa varied from 0.48 to 0.89. The highest level of agreement was seen for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP grade 1), while higher grades and particularly GS 4 + 3 = 7 (ISUP grade 3) showed considerable disagreement. Once a two-thirds majority was reached, images were moved automatically into a public database available for all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non-members are able to access a limited number of cases. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists to calibrate their grading and, hence, decrease interobserver variability. It will also help to identify instances where definitions of grades need to be clarified.

Gleason grade 4 prostate adenocarcinoma patterns: an interobserver agreement study among genitourinary pathologists.

AIMS: To assess the interobserver reproducibility of individual Gleason grade 4 growth patterns. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-three genitourinary pathologists participated in the evaluation of 60 selected high-magnification photographs. The selection included 10 cases of Gleason grade 3, 40 of Gleason grade 4 (10 per growth pattern), and 10 of Gleason grade 5. Participants were asked to select a single predominant Gleason grade per case (3, 4, or 5), and to indicate the predominant Gleason grade 4 growth pattern, if present. 'Consensus' was defined as at least 80% agreement, and 'favoured' as 60-80% agreement. Consensus on Gleason grading was reached in 47 of 60 (78%) cases, 35 of which were assigned to grade 4. In the 13 non-consensus cases, ill-formed (6/13, 46%) and fused (7/13, 54%) patterns were involved in the disagreement. Among the 20 cases where at least one pathologist assigned the ill-formed growth pattern, none (0%, 0/20) reached consensus. Consensus for fused, cribriform and glomeruloid glands was reached in 2%, 23% and 38% of cases, respectively. In nine of 35 (26%) consensus Gleason grade 4 cases, participants disagreed on the growth pattern. Six of these were characterized by large epithelial proliferations with delicate intervening fibrovascular cores, which were alternatively given the designation fused or cribriform growth pattern ('complex fused'). CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on Gleason grade 4 growth pattern was predominantly reached on cribriform and glomeruloid patterns, but rarely on ill-formed and fused glands. The complex fused glands seem to constitute a borderline pattern of unknown prognostic significance on which a consensus could not be reached.

Gleason drift in the NIHR ProtecT study.

AIMS: There is increasing evidence of Gleason score (GS) drift in prostatic core biopsies during the last two decades. The ProtecT study is a randomized controlled study and provides an excellent cohort to study the effect of time, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, perineural invasion, tumour length and age on GS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ProtecT study recruited men in the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2010. The Gleason scores were grouped into four categories ≤ 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3 and ≥ 4 + 4 for analysis. Data from England between 2000 and 2012 were also available. A total of 3282 biopsies containing cancer were analysed. For each year of the ProtecT study, the odds of being diagnosed with a higher GS category increased by 4.9%. Higher GS was also associated with perineural invasion, increasing tumour length, age and PSA level. While biopsy GS from England was incomplete, it also showed a marked decrease in GS five and six tumours during the same period. CONCLUSION: There was GS drift from 3 + 3 to 3 + 4 with time in the ProtecT study, but there appeared to be no significant change in percentage of GS 4 + 3 or higher. This drift was less dramatic when compared to GS in the rest of England.

Handling and reporting of orchidectomy specimens with testicular cancer: areas of consensus and variation among 25 experts and 225 European pathologists.

AIMS: The handling and reporting of testicular tumours is difficult due to their rarity. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey developed by the European Network of Uro-Pathology (ENUP) and sent to its members and experts to assess the evaluation of testicular germ cell tumours. Twenty-five experts and 225 ENUP members replied. Areas of disagreement included immaturity in teratomas, reported by 32% of experts but 68% of ENUP. Although the presence of rete testis invasion was reported widely, the distinction between pagetoid and stromal invasion was made by 96% of experts but only 63% of ENUP. Immunohistochemistry was used in more than 50% of cases by 68% of ENUP and 12% of experts. Staging revealed the greatest areas of disagreement. Invasion of the tunica vaginalis without vascular invasion was interpreted as T1 by 52% of experts and 67% of ENUP, but T2 by the remainder. Tumour invading the hilar adipose tissue adjacent to the epididymis without vascular invasion was interpreted as T1: 40% of experts, 43% of ENUP; T2: 36% of experts, 30% of ENUP; and T3: 24% of experts, 27% of ENUP. CONCLUSIONS: There is remarkable consensus in many areas of testicular pathology. Significant areas of disagreement included staging and reporting of histological types, both of which have the potential to impact on therapy.

The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists.

AIMS: The Gleason scoring system underwent revision at the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference in 2005. It is not known how uropathologists have interpreted its recommendations. METHOD AND RESULTS: A web-based survey to European Network of Uropathology members received replies from 266 pathologists in 22 countries. Eighty-nine per cent claimed to follow ISUP recommendations. Key areas of disagreement included the following. Smoothly rounded cribriform glands were assigned Gleason pattern (GP) 3 by 51% and GP 4 by 49%. Necrosis was diagnosed as GP 5 by 62%. Any amount of secondary pattern of higher grade in needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by 58%. Tertiary GP of higher grade on needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by only 58%. If biopsy cores were embedded separately, only 56% would give a Gleason score for each core/slide examined; 68% would give a concluding Gleason score and the most common method was a global Gleason score (77%). Among those who blocked multiple biopsy cores together, 46% would only give an overall Gleason score for the case. CONCLUSION: Misinterpretation of ISUP 2005 is widespread, and may explain the variation in Gleason scoring seen. Clarity and uniformity in teaching ISUP 2005 recommendations is necessary.

Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists.

AIMS: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). CONCLUSIONS: Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.