Kaushal, Seema

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.

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.

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.