Amin, Mahul B.

The Dublin ISUP Consensus Conference covered the proceedings on the best practice recommendations on nonurachal glandular lesions of the urinary bladder, bladder diverticular cancers, and molecular features of bladder and urachal glandular lesions. The conference proceedings on urachal neoplasms (except for their molecular features) are published elsewhere. The rationale for convening this conference was the lack of structured and consented pathologic recommendations in these rare lesions. Consensus by participants was reached on the following statements: (1) intestinal metaplasia with dysplasia is considered to be a precursor to primary bladder adenocarcinoma; (2) dysplasia arising from cystitis glandularis should be reported in terms of focality (focal or nonfocal) and grade (low or high); (3) the term “adenocarcinoma” should only be used for carcinomas showing pure (nonurothelial) morphology and should not be used interchangeably in urothelial carcinoma with “glandular differentiation” because of the pathobiological differences and management implications; (4) the different histologic subtypes of bladder adenocarcinoma should be specified in the report; (5) immunohistochemistry has an ancillary role in the work up of bladder adenocarcinoma versus gastrointestinal or Müllerian-type adenocarcinomas; (6) lymphovascular invasion should be included as a parameter when reporting bladder adenocarcinoma; (7) representative or targeted sampling will be sufficient for bladder diverticulum resection specimens; and (8) molecular analysis in genomic profiling should be performed only in advanced or metastatic bladder and urachal adenocarcinomas for targetable therapy. This report on glandular (nonurachal) lesions of the bladder from the Dublin ISUP consensus conference will serve as a best practice recommendation and as a guide for future research on these relatively rare lesions.

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.

This manuscript summarizes the first part of the proceedings of the 2023 Dublin ISUP Consensus Conference encompassing the best practice recommendations on the pathology of neoplasms of urachal origin. The rationale for convening this consensus conference was the lack of structured and consented histopathologic recommendations in these rare tumors. Consensus among the meeting participants (n=80) was reached on the following statements: (1) combination of gross, histologic, clinical and imaging findings with exclusion of secondary tumor metastasis are to be used in the diagnosis of urachal carcinoma; (2) the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) separate criteria for the diagnosis of urachal adenocarcinoma and for nonglandular carcinoma should be applied; (3) specific elements are to be evaluated and recorded in the gross examination of resection specimens containing urachal tumors; (4) sampling considerations for resection specimens containing urachal tumors are advised; (5) participants are against using 5% or 10% cutoff for the extent of intraepithelial carcinoma in urachal mucinous cystic tumor of low malignant potential; (6) use of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of urachal adenocarcinomas in transurethral resection (TUR) specimen is considered optional; (7) similar tumor classificatory (nosology) rules for carcinomas arising from bladder mucosa (eg, urothelial carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and neuroendocrine carcinoma) should be applied for nonglandular urachal carcinomas; (8) a new staging approach other than the previously proposed systems should be designed for urachal carcinoma; (9) a system modifying the current Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for urinary bladder cancer is considered appropriate for a study in urachal carcinoma; and (10) several histologic elements are to be reported when diagnosing urachal carcinoma in TUR and resection specimens. This report from the Dublin ISUP consensus conference will serve as a practice recommendation for pathologists and as a guide for future standardized reporting protocols and research regarding urachal tumors. In addition, an international database for urachal cancers under the guidance of ISUP is being planned to be established to address pertinent issues in the pathology of urachal cancers.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI ( P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773 ).

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 (&gt;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.

1 Background: To determine whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From April 2006 to December 2009, one thousand one hundred fifteen men with low-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage T1-2a, Gleason ≤ 6, PSA < 10) were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Secondary endpoints include freedom from biochemical recurrence (FFBR) and overall survival. At the third planned interim analysis (July 2015), the NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the results of the trial be reported. Results: One thousand one hundred and one protocol eligible men were randomized: 547 to C and 554 to H. Median follow-up is 5.9 years. Baseline characteristics are not different according to treatment arm. At the time of analysis 185 DFS events have been observed; 99 in the C arm and 86 in the H arm. The estimated 7-year disease-free survival is 75.6% (95% CI 70.3, 80.1) in the C arm and 81.8% (77.5, 85.3) in the H arm. The DFS HR (C/H) is 0.85 (0.64, 1.14). Comparison of biochemical recurrence (HR = 0.77, (0.51, 1.17)) and overall survival (HR = 0.95, (0.65, 1.41)) also met protocol non-inferiority criteria. Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.0% (C) vs. 4.6% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.53, (95% CI 0.86, 2.83); grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 4.5% (C) vs. 6.4% (H), RR = 1.43 (0.86,2.37). Conclusions: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is non-inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM‐based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a “population‐based” to a more “personalized” approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge‐based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as “what's new” in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.