Neuroendocrine differentiation in the setting of prostatic carcinoma: contemporary assessment of a consecutive series.

AIM: Clinicopathologic characterisation of a contemporary series of neuroendocrine (NE) differentiation in the setting of prostatic carcinoma (PCa) was examined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed institutional databases for in-house cases with a history of PCa and histopathologic evidence of NE differentiation during the disease course. In all, 79 cases were identified: 32 primary and 47 metastases. Metastatic lesions were in liver (n = 15), lymph node (n = 9), bone (n = 6), lung (n = 3), brain (n = 1), and other sites (n = 13). In all, 63 of 76 (82%) cases with NE differentiation and available history were posttherapy: six postradiation therapy (RT), 24 post- androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and 33 post-RT + ADT. Morphologic assessment (n = 79): (i) 23 pure small-cell/high-grade NE carcinoma (HGNEC): 20/23 metastatic; (ii) 10 combined high-grade PCa and small-cell/HGNEC: 9/10 primary; (iii) 15 PCa with diffuse NE immunohistochemistry (IHC) marker positivity/differentiation, associated with nested to sheet-like growth of cells with abundant cytoplasm and prominent nucleoli, yet diffuse positivity for at least one prostatic and one NE IHC marker: all metastatic; (iv) 11 PCa with patchy NE differentiation, displaying more than single-cell positivity for NE IHC: five primary / six metastatic; (v) nine PCa with focal NE marker positive cells: four primary / five metastatic; (vi) 11 PCa with 'Paneth cell-like' change: all primary. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary series, the majority of NE differentiation in the setting of PCa was seen posttherapy. We highlight the tendencies of small-cell/HGNEC and PCa with diffuse NE differentiation by IHC to occur in metastatic settings, while morphologically combined high-grade PCa + small-cell/HGNEC and 'Paneth cell-like' change occur in primary disease.

Immunohistochemistry-based assessment of androgen receptor status and the AR-null phenotype in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Molecular and immunohistochemistry-based profiling of prostatic adenocarcinoma has revealed frequent Androgen Receptor (AR) gene and protein alterations in metastatic disease. This includes an AR-null non-neuroendocrine phenotype of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer which may be less sensitive to androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. This AR-null non-neuroendocrine phenotype is thought to be associated with TP53 and RB1 alterations. Herein, we have correlated molecular profiling of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer with AR/P53/RB immunohistochemistry and relevant clinical correlates. DESIGN: Twenty-seven cases of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer were evaluated using histopathologic examination to rule out neuroendocrine differentiation. A combination of a hybridization exon-capture next-generation sequencing-based assay (n = 26), fluorescence in situ hybridization for AR copy number status (n = 16), and immunohistochemistry for AR (n = 27), P53 (n = 24) and RB (n = 25) was used to profile these cases. RESULTS: Of 27 metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer cases, 17 had AR amplification and showed positive nuclear expression of AR by immunohistochemistry. Nine cases lacked AR copy number alterations using next-generation sequencing/fluorescence in situ hybridization. A subset of these metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer cases demonstrated the AR-null phenotype by immunohistochemistry (five cases and one additional case where next-generation sequencing failed). Common co-alterations in these cases involved the TP53, RB1, and PTEN genes and all these patients received prior therapy with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (abiraterone and/or enzalutamide). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that AR immunohistochemistry may distinguish AR-null from AR-expressing cases in the metastatic setting. AR-null status informs clinical decision-making regarding continuation of therapy with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors and consideration of other treatment options. This might be a relevant and cost-effective diagnostic strategy when there is limited access and/or limited tumor material for molecular testing.