Colecchia, Maurizio

Aims Testicular sex cord‐stromal tumours (TSCSTs) are rare neoplasms that arise from (or show differentiation to) elements derived from the sex cords or intertubular stroma. The current classification (World Health Organization, 2022) is based almost entirely on morphology, with many tumour types such as granulosa cell tumours being defined based on their resemblance to ovarian counterparts. Recent studies have uncovered new clinicopathological, molecular and biological nuances within this group of tumours, underscoring differences with ovarian homologues. Methods and results Considering the new data, a group of genitourinary pathology experts (Testicular Sex Cord‐Stromal Tumour [TESST] group) has proposed a revised ‘TESST classification’ that incorporates the best available evidence. This classification is structured and hierarchical, composed of the following tiers: (1) group, (2) category, (3) entity and (4) histological pattern. ‘Group’ refers to the histological compartment a specific tumour belongs to (sex cords, stroma or both), whereas ‘category’ is defined by the phenotype of the tumour, taking non‐neoplastic elements of the ovary and testis as a reference. The third tier, ‘entity’, refers to neoplasms with shared clinicopathological and/or molecular features that justify classifying them as distinct types. Lastly, ‘histological patterns’ are recurrent morphological variations within entities that are not linked to distinct clinicopathological or molecular features. Conclusions We propose a classification that will provide a framework to improve current clinical management and guide future research in the field.

According to the current WHO classification, noninvasive germ cell neoplasia of the testis comprises germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS), specific forms of intratubular germ cell neoplasia, and gonadoblastoma. Because type II germ cell tumors (GCT, type II) arise from GCNIS, accurate detection of precursor lesions is diagnostically important. In preparation for the 2024 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on genitourinary precursor lesions, which took place in Florence, Italy, an anonymous survey was distributed to ISUP members to assess current diagnostic practices regarding testicular precursor lesions. The literature and current WHO classification affirm the significance of precursor lesions in testicular tumours. Working Group 4—Precursor Lesions of the Testis—focused on their practical application by individual pathologists rather than establishing consensus from scientific data. There is strong agreement that GCNIS is the preferred and appropriate term for GCT precursor lesions and that its presence should be reported in cases of invasive GCT. Respondents also agree that “seminoma with intratubular nonseminoma” is the appropriate terminology for seminoma with an associated noninvasive nonseminomatous (embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor, trophoblasts, or teratoma) component. Most pathologists prefer to use OCT3/4 as the primary immunohistochemical marker, and a panel was generally not considered necessary. No consensus is reached regarding the requirement for immunohistochemistry to confirm GCT precursor lesions in the testis. Three questions remain open: the value of subtyping intratubular lesions, the immunohistochemical approach to gonadoblastoma, and the criteria distinguishing Sertoli cell nodules from Sertoli cell tumors.

AimsCompared to lymphovascular invasion (LVI), hilar soft tissue invasion (HSTI) is a relatively novel pT2 staging parameter in testicular germ cell tumours (GCT), associated with metastasis at the time of diagnosis and a risk factor for disease relapse. Given diagnostic variability in how pathologists interpret HSTI, herein we explore interobserver reproducibility among genitourinary (GU) pathologists.MethodsTwenty haematoxylin and eosin‐stained digitized slides from testicular GCTs were distributed to 30 GU pathologists to classify each as HSTI or not HSTI based on their respective clinical practices; slides with concomitant LVI were excluded. Slides were then evaluated for the following morphologic features: tumour invasion beyond prominent hilar vessels, tumour invasion beyond the rete, tumour invasion beyond the level parallel to hilar adipose tissue and tumour within (directly touching) hilar adipose tissue. Interobserver reproducibility was assessed, and the morphological features were correlated with HSTI. Relationships between pathologists' interpretations, morphological features and HSTI were evaluated using hierarchical clustering.ResultsAlthough the diagnosis of HSTI was relatively uniform with a majority agreement (>67%) reached in 17/20 slides, overall interobserver reproducibility was only moderate (kappa = 0.50). Morphological features such as invasion beyond the level parallel to hilar adipose tissue and invasion into fat were more sensitive and specific for HSTI, while features such as invasion beyond hilar vessels and invasion beyond rete were less useful.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that more specific defined diagnostic criteria for testicular GCT HSTI are needed.

Aims Testicular sex cord‐stromal tumours (TSCSTs) are relatively rare, accounting for ~5% of all testicular neoplasms. They were historically classified into Leydig cell tumour, Sertoli cell tumour, granulosa cell tumour, and unclassified sex cord‐stromal tumour. More recently, classification was expanded to incorporate additional histologic types, including some associated with inherited cancer predisposition syndromes. However, the classification of TSCSTs still relies entirely on morphology, with some tumour types being defined based on their resemblance to ovarian counterparts. In recent years, molecular studies have identified drivers and genomic alterations associated with aggressive behaviour and progression; however, these findings have not yet impacted classification and management. Methods and results Under sponsorship of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS), a group of genitourinary pathologists was assembled in 2023 with the aim of assessing how to use these new data to improve the classification and management of TSCSTs. Conclusions This paper summarizes the recommendations derived from the consensus activities and the first meeting of the te sticular s ex cord‐ s tromal t umour (TESST) group (held at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, USA, 3/23/2024).

Abstract Spermatocytic tumor (ST) is a rare type of germ cell tumor that occurs exclusively in the postpubertal testis and typically affects elderly men. Most STs are benign, but rare cases exhibit aggressive clinical behavior, often in association with transition to sarcomatoid histology. Limited molecular analyses have been performed on STs; therefore, their genomic and epigenomic features remain incompletely described. Twenty‐seven samples from 25 individual patients were analyzed with a combination of DNA sequencing panels, genomic methylation profiling, SNP array, isochromosome (12p) [i(12p)] FISH, and immunohistochemistry. The series included five metastasizing tumors (three with sarcomatoid transformation, one anaplastic, and one conventional) and 20 non‐metastasizing tumors (14 anaplastic and six conventional). Anaplastic tumors comprised a monomorphic population of intermediate‐sized neoplastic cells, as previously described. Multiomic analyses demonstrated that there were two genomic subgroups of STs: one with diploid genomes and hotspot RAS / RAF variants and the other with global ploidy shift and absence of recurrent mutations. Relative gain of chromosome 9 was a consistent finding in both subgroups. A comparison of metastasizing and non‐metastasizing cases demonstrated that aggressive behavior was associated with the acquisition of pathogenic TP53 mutations and/or relative gains of 12p/i(12p). In cases with sarcomatoid transformation, TP53 mutations seem to underlie the transition to sarcomatoid histology. Genomic methylation analysis demonstrated that aggressive cases with gains of 12p cluster closer to pure seminomas than to STs without gains of 12p. In conclusion, STs include two genomic subgroups, characterized by global ploidy shifts without recurrent mutations and diploid genomes with RAS / RAF hotspot mutations, respectively. Biologic progression was associated with relative gains of 12p and TP53 mutations. The findings in STs with relative gains of 12p suggest that they may exhibit biologic characteristics akin to those seen in germ cell neoplasia in situ ‐related germ cell tumors rather than non‐germ cell neoplasia in situ ‐derived STs. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Context.— Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading. Objective.— To update grading recommendations. Data Sources.— Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys. Conclusions.— Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace “tertiary grade pattern” in radical prostatectomy (RP) with “minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5),” and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) “atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)” is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.