Kunju, Lakshmi P.

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) undertook a critical review of the recent advances in bladder cancer focusing on important topics of high interest for the practicing surgical pathologist and urologist. This review represents the second of 2 manuscripts ensuing from this effort. Herein, we address the effective reporting of bladder cancer, focusing particularly on newly published data since the last 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. In addition, this review focuses on the importance of reporting bladder cancer with divergent differentiation and variant (subtypes of urothelial carcinoma) histologies and the potential impact on patient care. We provide new recommendations for reporting pT1 staging in diagnostic pathology. Furthermore, we explore molecular evolution and classification, emphasizing aspects that impact the understanding of important concepts relevant to reporting and management of patients.

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) undertook a critical review of the recent advances in bladder neoplasia with a focus on issues relevant to the practicing surgical pathologist for the understanding and effective reporting of bladder cancer, emphasizing particularly on the newly accumulated evidence post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. The work is presented in 2 manuscripts. Here, in the first, we revisit the nomenclature and classification system used for grading flat and papillary urothelial lesions centering on clinical relevance, and on dilemmas related to application in routine reporting. As patients of noninvasive bladder cancer frequently undergo cystoscopy and biopsy in their typically prolonged clinical course and for surveillance of disease, we discuss morphologies presented in these scenarios which may not have readily applicable diagnostic terms in the WHO classification. The topic of inverted patterns in urothelial neoplasia, particularly when prominent or exclusive, and beyond inverted papilloma has not been addressed formally in the WHO classification. Herein we provide a through review and suggest guidelines for when and how to report such lesions. In promulgating these GUPS recommendations, we aim to provide clarity on the clinical application of these not so uncommon diagnostically challenging situations encountered in routine practice, while also importantly advocating consistent terminology which would inform future work.

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.

Introduction: The advent of digital slides offers new opportunities within the practice of pathology such as the use of image analysis techniques to facilitate computer aided diagnosis (CAD) solutions. Use of CAD holds promise to enable new levels of decision support and allow for additional layers of quality assurance and consistency in rendered diagnoses. However, the development and testing of prostate cancer CAD solutions requires a ground truth map of the cancer to enable the generation of receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. This requires a pathologist to annotate, or paint, each of the malignant glands in prostate cancer with an image editor software - a time consuming and exhaustive process.Recently, two CAD algorithms have been described: probabilistic pairwise Markov models (PPMM) and spatially-invariant vector quantization (SIVQ). Briefly, SIVQ operates as a highly sensitive and specific pattern matching algorithm, making it optimal for the identification of any epithelial morphology, whereas PPMM operates as a highly sensitive detector of malignant perturbations in glandular lumenal architecture.Methods: By recapitulating algorithmically how a pathologist reviews prostate tissue sections, we created an algorithmic cascade of PPMM and SIVQ algorithms as previously described by Doyle el al. [1] where PPMM identifies the glands with abnormal lumenal architecture, and this area is then screened by SIVQ to identify the epithelium.Results: The performance of this algorithm cascade was assessed qualitatively (with the use of heatmaps) and quantitatively (with the use of ROC curves) and demonstrates greater performance in the identification of malignant prostatic epithelium.Conclusion: This ability to semi-autonomously paint nearly all the malignant epithelium of prostate cancer has immediate applications to future prostate cancer CAD development as a validated ground truth generator. In addition, such an approach has potential applications as a pre-screening/quality assurance tool.