Kench, James G.

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.

AimsDespite efforts to standardise grading of prostate cancer, even among experts there is still a considerable variation in grading practices. In this study we describe the use of Pathology Imagebase, a novel reference image library, for setting an international standard in prostate cancer grading.Methods and resultsThe International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recently launched a reference image database supervised by experts. A panel of 24 international experts in prostate pathology reviewed independently microphotographs of 90 cases of prostate needle biopsies with cancer. A linear weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% confidence interval = 0.62–0.72) and consensus was reached in 50 cases. The interobserver weighted kappa varied from 0.48 to 0.89. The highest level of agreement was seen for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP grade 1), while higher grades and particularly GS 4 + 3 = 7 (ISUP grade 3) showed considerable disagreement. Once a two‐thirds majority was reached, images were moved automatically into a public database available for all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non‐members are able to access a limited number of cases.ConclusionsIt is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists to calibrate their grading and, hence, decrease interobserver variability. It will also help to identify instances where definitions of grades need to be clarified.

AimsDespite efforts to standardize histopathology practice through the development of guidelines, the interpretation of morphology is still hampered by subjectivity. We here describe Pathology Imagebase, a novel mechanism for establishing an international standard for the interpretation of pathology specimens.Methods and resultsThe International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) established a reference image database through the input of experts in the field. Three panels were formed, one each for prostate, urinary bladder and renal pathology, consisting of 24 international experts. Each of the panel members uploaded microphotographs of cases into a non‐public database. The remaining 23 experts were asked to vote from a multiple‐choice menu. Prior to and while voting, panel members were unable to access the results of voting by the other experts. When a consensus level of at least two‐thirds or 16 votes was reached, cases were automatically transferred to the main database. Consensus was reached in a total of 287 cases across five projects on the grading of prostate, bladder and renal cancer and the classification of renal tumours and flat lesions of the bladder. The full database is available to all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non‐members may access a selected number of cases.ConclusionsIt is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists in calibrating their grading, and will also promote consistency in the diagnosis of difficult cases.