Grossing and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens: An evidence-based approach.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) constitutes the primary treatment option for patients with clinically localized, biopsy-proven prostate cancer that requires local treatment with curative intent. Accurate reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens is required to guide further risk stratification and management of patients. Hence, for the handling and reporting of RP specimens, a standardized protocol should be followed. Many general pathologists may not be well-versed with the guidelines for the handling of radical prostatectomy specimens. This article discusses a detailed approach to grossing techniques, including specimen description, fixation requirements, gross cut-up, and reporting of the grade and stage of RP specimens. This will enable the pathologist to aid in multidisciplinary management.

Reporting Trends, Practices, and Resource Utilization in Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Prostate Gland: A Survey among Thirty-Nine Genitourinary Pathologists.

Background. Neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland ranges from clinically insignificant neuroendocrine differentiation detected with markers in an otherwise conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma to a lethal high-grade small/large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The concept of neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic adenocarcinoma has gained considerable importance due to its prognostic and therapeutic ramifications and pathologists play a pivotal role in its recognition. However, its awareness, reporting, and resource utilization practice patterns among pathologists are largely unknown. Methods. Representative examples of different spectrums of neuroendocrine differentiation along with a detailed questionnaire were shared among 39 urologic pathologists using the survey monkey software. Participants were specifically questioned about the use and awareness of the 2016 WHO classification of neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate, understanding of the clinical significance of each entity, and use of different immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. De-identified respondent data were analyzed. Results. A vast majority (90%) of the participants utilize IHC markers to confirm the diagnosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. A majority (87%) of the respondents were in agreement regarding the utilization of type of IHC markers for small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma for which 85% of the pathologists agreed that determination of the site of origin of a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma is not critical, as these are treated similarly. In the setting of mixed carcinomas, 62% of respondents indicated that they provide quantification and grading of the acinar component. There were varied responses regarding the prognostic implication of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and for Paneth cell-like differentiation. The classification of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma was highly varied, with only 38% agreement in the illustrated case. Finally, despite the recommendation not to perform neuroendocrine markers in the absence of morphologic evidence of neuroendocrine differentiation, 62% would routinely utilize IHC in the work-up of a Gleason score 5 + 5 = 10 acinar adenocarcinoma and its differentiation from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. Conclusion. There is a disparity in the practice utilization patterns among the urologic pathologists with regard to diagnosing high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma and in understanding the clinical significance of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation. There seems to have a trend towards overutilization of IHC to determine neuroendocrine differentiation in the absence of neuroendocrine features on morphology. The survey results suggest a need for further refinement and development of standardized guidelines for the classification and reporting of neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland.

Expert survey on management of prostate cancer in India: Real-world insights into practice patterns.

To gain insights on the diverse practice patterns and treatment pathways for prostate cancer (PC) in India, the Urological Cancer Foundation convened the first Indian survey to discuss all aspects of PC, with the objective of guiding clinicians on optimizing management in PC. A modified Delphi method was used, wherein a multidisciplinary panel of oncologists treating PC across India developed a questionnaire related to screening, diagnosis and management of early, locally advanced and metastatic PC and participated in a web-based survey (WBS) (n = 62). An expert committee meeting (CM) (n = 48, subset from WBS) reviewed the ambiguous questions for better comprehension and reanalyzed the evidence to establish a revote for specific questions. The threshold for strong agreement and agreement was ≥90% and ≥75% agreement, respectively. Sixty-two questions were answered in the WBS; in the CM 31 questions were revoted and 4 questions were added. The panelists selected answers based on their best opinion and closest to their practice strategy, not considering financial constraints and access challenges. Of the 66 questions, strong agreement was reached for 17 questions and agreement was achieved for 22 questions. There were heterogeneous responses for 27 questions indicative of variegated management approaches. This is one of the first Indian survey, documenting the diverse clinical practice patterns in the management of PC in India. It aims to provide guidance in the face of technological advances, resource constraints and sparse high-level evidence.

F-18 PSMA Uptake in Male Breast Cancer during Restaging Evaluation of Carcinoma Prostate.

Fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan is widely used for restaging of prostate cancer. We present a case where false-positive PSMA uptake was seen in metachronous carcinoma breast during restaging workup of carcinoma prostate.

Gross reporting of adult kidney tumor specimens: A comprehensive evidence-based review.

Renal tumors comprise a wide spectrum of benign and malignant tumors. The important prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma include pathological stage, tumor grade, morphological type, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation, and tumor necrosis. Therefore, the pathologist needs to be fully aware of how to gross nephrectomy specimens to be able to accurately provide the above prognostic information while reporting adult kidney tumors. With the advent of nephron-sparing surgeries, due diligence should be exercised to assess and sample the parenchymal surgical margin. This article discusses the approach to grossing nephrectomy specimens, elaborates the significance of every step, and also sheds light on the importance of clinical and radiological information in providing a holistic approach to the diagnosis and staging of adult renal tumors.

Grossing and reporting of testicular tumor specimens : An evidence-based approach.

The majority of testicular tumors are germ cell tumors (GCTs), but there are numerous other types, making testicular tumors one of the most diverse areas of human pathology, despite their relative rarity. Testicular tumors are usually diagnosed only after radical surgery, as biopsies are not performed. Further management of the patient is dependent on the diagnosis at microscopy, which itself is based on the sections taken at the time of grossing the specimen. Many pathologists often aren't well versed with guidelines for handling of orchiectomy specimens and for microscopy. This article discusses, in detail, the approach to grossing of a testicular tumor specimen and elaborates of the reasons as to why we do what we do at the initial "cut-up". It explains the logic behind the reporting guidelines for testicular tumors and offer a clinical primer to the pathologist as to why we do what we do while grossing testicular tumor specimens.

Status of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion in prostate cancer patients from India: correlation with clinico-pathological details and TMPRSS2 Met160Val polymorphism.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) shows considerable clinical heterogeneity that has been primarily attributed to variable molecular alterations. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion is one such molecular subtype that has been associated with predominantly poor prognosis. More recently, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the TMPRSS2 gene rs12329760 C>T (Met160Val) has been shown to positively correlate with the fusion status and also to be associated with increased risk for PCa. The aim of the present study is to determine the frequency of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion and association of rs12329760 in Indian PCa patients with fusion status. METHODS: TMPRSS2-ERG fusion by fluorescence in situ hybridization was determined in 102 of 150 PCa biopsy-proven cases. Genotyping for rs12329760 was performed on the entire cohort of 150 cases by Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: TMPRSS2-ERG fusion was seen in 27 of 102 (26%) cases. Fusion-positive patterns in this study showed fusion by translocation in nine of 27 cases (33.5%), by deletion in six of 27 (22%) cases, and by insertion in 12 of 27 cases (44.5%). No association of the fusion status with Gleason Score, pattern, or perineural invasion was seen. The TMPRSS2 SNP rs12329760 'T' allele was prevalent with a frequency of 0.27 in the PCa patients. The SNP was significantly associated with fusion [odds ratio (OR) = 2.176, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.012-4.684, P = 0.04], more specifically fusion by deletion (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The results provided here determine the frequency of TMPRSS2-ERG fusions (26%) in a fairly large cohort of Indian PCa cases and also the association of rs12329760 SNP with TMPRSS2-ERG fusion. No association with other clinico-pathological features was observed. Future studies with clinical outcomes are warranted in this population.