Prostate - Needle.specimen - BX 1.1.0.0.REL CAPCP
Prostate - Needle.specimen - BX 1.1.0.0.REL CAPCP
Prostate - Needle.specimen - BX 1.1.0.0.REL CAPCP
Authors
Gladell P. Paner, MD, FCAP*; John R. Srigley, MD*; Lara R. Harik, MD, FCAP*; Mahul B. Amin, MD;
Scott E. Eggener, MD; Jiaoti Huang, MD, PhD; Rodolfo Montironi, MD; Jason R. Pettus, MD; Giovanna A.
Giannico, MD; S. Joseph Sirintrapun, MD; Thomas M. Wheeler, MD; Ming Zhou, MD, PhD.
With guidance from the CAP Cancer and CAP Pathology Electronic Reporting Committees.
* Denotes primary author.
Accreditation Requirements
The use of this case summary is recommended for clinical care purposes but is not required for
accreditation purposes. The core and conditional data elements are routinely reported. Non-core data
elements are indicated with a plus sign (+) to allow for reporting information that may be of clinical value.
© 2023 College of American Pathologists (CAP). All rights reserved. For Terms of Use please visit www.cap.org/cancerprotocols . 1
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
Summary of Changes
v 1.1.0.0
• WHO 5th Edition update to content and Explanatory Notes
• LVI question update from “Lymphovascular Invasion” to “Lymphatic and/or Vascular Invasion"
• Update to “Cribriform Gland” question answers
2
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
Reporting Template
Protocol Posting Date: September 2023
Select a single response unless otherwise indicated.
TUMOR
3
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
4
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
5
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
COMMENTS
Comment(s): _________________
6
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
Explanatory Notes
In the situation, for example, where 12 cores from systematic sampling are submitted, ideally these
should be received in 12 separate site-specific labeled containers (1 core per container from each specific
site). However, occasionally these 12 cores may also be received in 6 containers each with 2 cores with
typical sextant designations or 6 cores in each of 2 containers labeled left and right (more than 1 core per
container from combined sites). It is also not uncommon for one specific site to have more than 1 core
sampled (more than 1 core per container from one specific site). In addition to systematic biopsies, MRI-
guided biopsies of suspicious abnormalities are commonly being performed. With respect to technical
quality, single-core site-specific labeled submission is ideal, but 2 core submission is also acceptable.
When more than 2 cores are submitted in a single container, there is an increased likelihood of
fragmentation.
The reporting of prostate biopsies may be done at specimen and case level.10 It is recommended that
Gleason grading should be assigned to each individual biopsy site.9,11,12,13,14,For single cores in individual
containers representing different sites, this recommendation is not a problem. When there is more than 1
core in a container, individual core reporting is recommended if the cores are separately labeled as to
their specific location with colored inks.
7
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
Two optional case summaries are provided for prostate biopsy cases. One is a specimen-level summary,
which would be used for each positive specimen. In a case where 6 of 12 specimens show prostate
cancer, 6 specimen summaries would be used. A case-level summary is also provided, which can be
used in conjunction with the specimen level summaries or on its own. In the latter situation, a simple line
diagnosis documenting the Gleason grades, score, extent measurements, and other relevant
observations should be provided for each positive specimen.
The minimum required reporting is at the specimen level, and more granular reporting would be
considered optional. This approach is important as it takes into account workload considerations. In
workload measurement systems (at least those based on the CPT system), the units of work are the
specimens and not the individual pieces or fragments that constitute a single specimen.
References
1. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical
practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol. 2013;189:6:2039-2046.
2. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Samaratunga H, Evans AJ. Optimising pre-analytical factors
affecting quality of prostate biopsies: the case for site specific labelling and single core
submission. Pathology. 2014;46(7):579-580.
3. Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active
surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations – A report of a European
School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol. 2017;71:648-655.
4. Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimizing the number of cores taken during
prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;5:418-425.
5. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for
active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus
statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists,
International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical
Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1387-405.
6. Meyer AR, Mamawala M, Winoker JS, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy improves the detection
of clinically significant prostate cancer among men on active surveillance. J Urol. 2021;205:1069-
1074.
7. Drost FH, Ossess D, Neiboer D, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without
magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate
cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77:78-94.
8. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic
resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement
by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196:1613-1618.
9. van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of
Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87-e99.
10. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, et al. Controversial issues in Gleason and International
Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for
international implementation. Pathology. 2019;51:463-473.
11. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad L, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading
of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242.
12. Humphrey P, Amin MB, Berney D, Billis A, et al. Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Moch H, Humphrey
PA, Ulbright T, Reuter VE, eds. Pathology and Genetics: Tumors of the Urinary System and Male
8
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
Genital Organs. 4th edition. WHO Classification of Tumors. Zurich, Switzerland: WHO Press;
2015:3-28.
13. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; and the Grading
Committee The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus
Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and
proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252.
14. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Fine SW, et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White
Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. Arch Path Lab Med. 2021;145:461-493.
B. Histologic Type
This protocol applies to invasive adenocarcinomas and other carcinomas of the prostate
gland.1 Carcinomas other than adenocarcinoma are exceptionally uncommon, accounting for less than
1% of prostatic tumors. Tumors such as neuroendocrine and squamous cell carcinomas may occur in
pure form or are admixed with adenocarcinoma. This protocol does not apply to urothelial carcinoma.
Some adenocarcinoma subtypes and unusual patterns have percentage cut-offs to render their diagnosis.
Since examination of the entire tumor is not amenable in biopsy, a descriptive approach in their diagnosis
should also be considered (e.g., adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, adenocarcinoma with signet
ring-like cell features).
References
1. Amin MB, Kench JG, Rubin MA, et al. Tumours of the prostate. In: WHO Classification of
Tumours Editorial Board, eds. Urinary and Male Genital Tumours. WHO Classification of
Tumours. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2022:193-234.
C. Histologic Grade
Gleason Score
The Gleason grading system is recommended for use in all prostatic specimens containing
adenocarcinoma, with the exception of those showing treatment effects, usually in the setting of hormonal
ablation and radiation therapy.1,2,3 Readers are referred to the recommendations of three ISUP
consensus conferences and the GUPS position paper dealing with the contemporary usage of the
Gleason system in biopsy specimens (also see Figure 2).4,5,6,7 The Gleason score in biopsy is an
important parameter used in active surveillance criteria and nomograms, such as the Kattan nomograms,
and the Partin tables, which guide individual treatment decisions.8,9,10,11
In needle biopsy specimens, Gleason score is the sum of the primary (most predominant) Gleason grade
and worst (of the non-predominant) Gleason grade. Where no secondary Gleason grade exists, the
primary Gleason grade is doubled to arrive at a Gleason score. The primary and secondary grades
should be reported in addition to the Gleason score, that is, Gleason score 7(3+4) or 7(4+3).
9
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
It is recommended that Gleason scores be assigned for each separately identified needle biopsy site,
including for each MRI-targeted lesion.6,7,12,13 If multiple cores in a specimen container are not separately
designated, a Gleason score can be assigned for that specimen.
In needle biopsy specimens where there is a minor secondary component (less than 5% of tumor) and
where the secondary component is of higher grade, the latter should be reported. For instance, a case
showing more than 95% Gleason pattern 3 and less than 5% Gleason pattern 4 should be reported as
Gleason score 7(3+4). Conversely, if a minor secondary pattern is of lower grade, it need not be reported.
For instance, where there is greater than 95% Gleason pattern 4 and less than 5% Gleason pattern 3, the
score should be reported as Gleason score 8(4+4).
In needle biopsy specimens where more than 2 patterns are present, and the worst grade is neither the
predominant nor the secondary grade, the predominant and highest grade should be chosen to arrive at a
score (e.g., 75% pattern 3, 20-25% pattern 4, <5% pattern 5 is scored as 3+5=8). The above rules apply
to both specimen-level and case-level reporting.
Another recommendation is that the percentage of pattern 4 should be reported in all Gleason score
7(3+4, 4+3) cases.6,7,14,15 This measurement further stratifies Gleason score 7 and allows identification of
cases with limited pattern 4 (e.g., <10%) or extensive pattern 4 (e.g., >80%). This has practical
10
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
importance since selected patients with Gleason score 7(3+4) but small amounts of pattern 4 (≤ 10%)
may be eligible for active surveillance. A method recommended for reporting of Gleason pattern 4 is by
either 5% or less or 10% or less and 10% increments thereafter.
In specimen level reporting, reporting percentage Gleason pattern 4 in Gleason score 7 cancer for a
biopsy site becomes optional if another biopsy site contains at least Gleason score 8 cancer. In limited
cancer focus (<10% involvement of a core), grading and reporting of percentage Gleason pattern 4
should be made with caution and a comment should be made stating that the focus is too small to
accurately assign a percent of Gleason pattern 4.16
Uncommonly, there will be limited carcinoma of few glands from a specimen site that is too small to
confidently render a grade (tumor microfocus). Rather than providing a potentially inaccurate grade that
can influence the management, it is recommended not to render a grade to this small focus. Grading is
also not applicable for cores showing cancer as perineural invasion only.
It is now recognized that Gleason pattern 4 has four basic architectures in cribriform, fused, poorly-formed
and glomeruloid glands.17,18,19 Among these architectures, cribriform has been shown to be an
independent predictor of poorer outcome particularly in Gleason score 7 tumors. It is now recommended
to report the presence of cribriform gland in biopsies with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. There are recent
attempts to standardize the definition of cribriform pattern.20 ISUP defines cribriform patterns as a
confluent sheet of contiguous malignant epithelial cells with multiple glandular lumina that are easily
visible at low power (objective magnification x10) and with no intervening stroma or mucin separating
individual or fused glandular structures.
The presence treatment effects to cancer should be reported and is important especially if Gleason
grading is rendered not applicable.3,4 It should be recognized that in post-treatment settings, grading may
still be applied for prostate cancers lacking treatment effects particularly on the new onset (de novo)
cancers.
Grade Group
It is recognized that contemporary Gleason scores can be grouped into 5 prognostic categories, Grade
groups 1-5.21 This grade grouping has also been subsequently validated by other independent studies in
surgical cohorts showing significant correlation with outcome.22,23 The new grade grouping has been
endorsed by ISUP, GUPS and in the 2016 WHO classification.1,5,6,7 The grade group is also referred to as
ISUP grade or WHO grade in other publications. The grade group should be reported in parallel with the
Gleason score.
Less than or
1 Only individual discrete well-formed glands
equal to 6
11
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
References
1. Humphrey P, Amin MB, Berney D, Billis A, et al. Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Moch H, Humphrey
PA, Ulbright T, Reuter VE, eds. Pathology and Genetics: Tumors of the Urinary System and Male
Genital Organs. 4th edition. WHO Classification of Tumors. Zurich, Switzerland: WHO Press;
2015:3-28.
2. Gleason DR, Mellinger GT, the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group.
Prediction of prognosis for prostate adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical
staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64.
3. Paner GP, Magi-Galluzzi C, Amin MB, Srigley JR: Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In: Amin MB,
Grignon DJ, Srigley JR, Eble JN, eds. Urological Pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott William
& Wilkins; 2014:559-673.
4. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad L, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading
of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242.
5. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; and the Grading
Committee The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus
Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and
proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252.
6. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Fine SW, et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White
Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. Arch Path Lab. Med 2021;145:461-493.
7. van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of
Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87-e99.
8. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for
active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus
statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists,
International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical
Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1387-405.
9. Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO Clinical
practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for
Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3251-3258.
10. Partin AW, Kattab MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage,
and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional
update. JAMA. 1997;177:1445-1451.
12
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
11. Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Yu C, et al. Preoperative and postoperative nomograms incorporating
surgeon experience for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2009;115:1005-1010.
12. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, et al. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. An
update with discussion on practical issues to implement the International Society of Urological
Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg
Pathol. 2017;41:e1-e7.
13. Paner GP, Gandhi J, Choy B, et al. Essential updates in grading, morphotyping, reporting and
staging of prostate carcinoma for general surgical pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2019;140:55-564.
14. Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate
Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69:592-598.
15. Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate
biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016;196:405-411.
16. Sadimin ET, Khani F, Diolombi M, Meltit A, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of percent
Gleason pattern 4 in prostatic adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol.
2016;40:1686-1692.
17. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate
cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am
J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:98-107.
18. Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, et al. Prognostic significance of percentages and architectural
types of contemporary Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg
Pathol. 2016;40:1400-1406.
19. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for
postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod
Pathol. 2015;28:457-464.
20. van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ, Berney DM, et al. ISUP consensus definition of cribriform
prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2021;45:1118-1126.
21. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based
on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-760.
22. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a
validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428-435.
23. Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading
system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(10):1078-1083.
Both ISUP and GUPS recommend that Gleason scores or grade groups should not be assigned to pure
IDC.6,7,8 However, there is controversy when grading invasive cancer with concomitant IDC. ISUP
recommends incorporating IDC in determining the grade while GUPS recommends not to include IDC in
determining the grade.7,8 It is recommended to specify which of these two grading approaches is applied
when grading invasive cancer with concomitant IDC.
13
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
Distinction between IDC and invasive cribriform or comedonecrosis patterns should be based on
morphological examination. In the grading approach where IDC is not incorporated in grading,
immunohistochemistry for basal cells can be used if the results will change the grade.7
References
1. Guo CC and Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: Histologic
features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(12):1528-1535.
2. Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Bonkhoff H and Rubin MA. A proposal on the identification, histologic
reporting, and implications of intraductal prostatic carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2007;131(7):1103-1109.
3. Zhou M. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: the whole story. Pathology. 2013;45(6):533-539.
4. Montironi R, Zhou M, Magi-Galluzzi C, Epstein JI. Features and prognostic significance of
intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1:21-28.
5. Varma M. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: A guide for practicing pathologist. Adv Anat
Pathol. 2021. Online ahead of print.
6. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; and the Grading
Committee The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus
Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and
proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252.
7. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Fine SW, et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White
Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer. Arch Path Lab Med. 2021;145:461-493.
8. van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Girgnon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of
Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87-e99.
E. Quantitation of Tumor
Studies have shown prostate cancer volume is a prognostic factor, although data are conflicting as to its
independent prognostic significance.1,2,3,4,5 For needle core biopsy specimens, the number of positive
cores out of the total number of cores should always be reported, except in situations where
fragmentation precludes accurate counting. The estimated percentage of prostatic tissue involved by
tumor and/or the linear millimeters of the tumor should also be reported. Reporting of the positive core
with the greatest percentage of tumor is an option since in some active surveillance (AS) protocols, the
presence of any cores with >50% involvement is an exclusion criterion.6
It is not uncommon that a core is discontinuously involved by cancer foci.7,8,9 One practical consideration
is how to record discontinuous areas of tumor involvement. For instance, in a 20-mm core with 5%
involvement at each end, the amount may be recorded as 5% + 5% = 10% involvement or 100%
involvement in a discontinuous fashion even though there is only 2 mm of actual tumor length. The
pattern of reporting may actually exclude a patient from an AS protocol. In such situations, it may be
worthwhile reporting discontinuous involvement by both including (considering multiple foci as
discontinuous tumor) and subtracting (considering multiple foci as continuous tumor) the intervening
tissue; for example, in the 20-mm core, there are discontinuous foci of adenocarcinoma spanning a
distance of 20 mm (100% linear extent) and measuring 1+1=2 mm (10% linear extent). Most studies have
also shown that recording the cancer length from one end to the other correlates better with radical
prostatectomy findings and prognostic outcomes than subtracting the intervening benign prostate tissue.
These findings are supported by studies that showed that 75% to 80% of discontinuous cancer foci in
prostate biopsy cores might represent the same tumor focus.7
14
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
References
1. Bismar TA, Lewis JS, JR, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent
versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a
screening population. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:432-440.
2. Brimo F, Vollmer R, Corcos J, et al. Prognostic values of various morphometric measurements of
tumour extent in prostate needle core tissues. Histopathology. 2008;53:177-183.
3. Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy. J
Urol. 2011;187:790-7.
4. Paner GP, Magi-Galluzzi C, Amin MB, Srigley JR: Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In: Amin MB,
Grignon DJ, Srigley JR, Eble JN,eds. Urological Pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott William &
Wilkins; 2014:559-673.
5. Grignon DJ. Prostate cancer reporting and staging: needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy
specimens. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S96-S109.
6. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for
active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus
statement with recommendations supported by The College of American Pathologists,
International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical
Pathology, The New Zealand Society of Pathologists and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1387-1405.
7. Arias-Stella JA 3rd, Varma KR, Montoya-Cerrillo D, Gupta NS, Williamson SR. Does
discontinuous involvement of a prostatic needle biopsy core by adenocarcinoma correlate with a
large tumor focus at radical prostatectomy? Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39(2):281-286.
8. Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Should intervening benign tissue be included in the
measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical
prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(9):1351-1355.
9. Schultz L, Maluf C, da Silva R, et al. Discontinuous foci of cancer in a single core of prostate
biopsy: when it occurs and performance of quantification methods in a private-practice setting.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:8131-1836.
For purposes of staging, seminal vesicle involvement is defined as tumor in the muscular wall of the
extraprostatic portion of seminal vesicle.7,8 In a biopsy directed at the extraprostatic seminal vesicle,
involvement by carcinoma indicates at least category pT3b disease. However, when seminal vesicle-type
tissue is unintentionally sampled in a prostate biopsy set, it is important to be aware of some nuances.
Firstly, it may be difficult to distinguish seminal vesicle from ejaculatory duct. Furthermore, the seminal
vesicle tissue is likely from the intra-prostatic portion of the seminal vesicle and its involvement by tumor
does not equate to pT3b disease. It is important to clarify this point in a comment so clinicians reading the
report do not overstage the carcinoma.
References
1. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York, NY:
Springer; 2017.
2. Billis A. Intraprostatic fat: does it exist? Hum Pathol. 2004;35:525.
15
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
3. Sung M, Eble J, Cheng L. Invasion of fat justifies assignment of stage pT3a in prostatic
adenocarcinoma. Pathology 2006;38:309–311.
4. Nazeer T, Kee K, Ro J, et al. Intraprostatic adipose tissue: a study of 427 whole mounted radical
prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:538–541.
5. Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod L, Dauge-Geffroy M, et al. Systematic biopsies accurately predict
extracapsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/recurrent detectable PSA after radical
prostatectomy. Urology. 1994;44:371–376.
6. Miller J, Chen Y-b YeH, Robinson B, et al. Extraprostatic extension of prostatic adenocarcinoma
on needle core biopsy: report of 72 cases with clinical follow-up. BJU Int. 2010;106:330–333.
7. Berney D, Wheeler T, Grignon D, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)
consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working
group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:39–47.
8. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM. The mechanisms and
prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol.
1993;17:1252-1261.
G. Perineural Invasion
Perineural invasion (PNI) in needle core biopsies has been associated with EPE in some correlative
radical prostatectomy studies, however, its significance as a predictor of stage and outcome is
questionable in multivariate analysis.1,2,3,4,5 A recent study in targeted biopsy found PNI to independently
predict extraprostatic extension.6 Studies on AS cohort showed conflicting result on the ability of PNI
predict adverse pathological findings and outcome.7,8
References
1. O’Malley KJ, Pound CR, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Influence of biopsy perineural
invasion on long-term biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology.
2002;59:85-90.
2. Bismar TA, Lewis JS, JR, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent
versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a
screening population. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:432-440.
3. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Clements H, et al. The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in
prostatic carcinoma biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer. 2007;109:13-24.
4. Loeb S, Epstein J, Humphreys E, et al. Does perineural invasion on prostate biopsy predict
adverse prostatectomy outcomes? BJU Int. 2010;105:1510–1513.
5. Paner GP, Magi-Galluzzi C, Amin MB, Srigley JR: Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In: Amin MB,
Grignon DJ, Srigley JR, Eble JN,eds. Urological Pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott William &
Wilkins; 2014:559-673.
6. Truong M, Rais-Bahrami S, Nix J, et al. Perineural invasion by prostate cancer on MR/US fusion
targeted biopsy is associated with extraprostatic extension and early biochemical recurrence after
radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol. 2017;66:206–211.
7. Trpkov C, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K. Perineural invasion in prostate cancer patients who are potential
candidates for active surveillance: validation study. Urology. 2014;84:149–152.
8. Moreira D, Fleshner N, Freedland S. Baseline perineural invasion is associated with shorter time
to progression in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance: results from the
REDEEM study. J Urol. 2015;194:1258–1263.
16
CAP Approved Prostate.Needle.Specimen.Bx_1.1.0.0.REL_CAPCP
may also have other architectures, but the nuclear atypia is beyond that for high-grade prostatic
intraepithelial neoplasia. Presence of AIP in needle core biopsy may represent an unsampled intraductal
carcinoma and has been shown to be associated with adverse pathological features in radical
prostatectomy.4
References
1. Shah RB, Zhou M. Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: clinical significance, differential
diagnosis and current concept of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Adv Anat Pathol.
2012;19(4):270–278.
2. Morais CL, Han JS, Gordetsky J, et al. Utility of PTEN and ERG immunostaining for
distinguishing high-grade PIN from intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2015;39(2):169–178.
3. Hickman RA, Yu H, Li J, et al. Atypical intraductal cribriform proliferations of the prostate exhibit
similar molecular and clinicopathologic characteristics as intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(4):550–556.
4. Shah RB, Nguyen JK, Przybycin CG, et al. Atypical intraductal proliferation detected in prostate
needle biopsy is a marker of unsampled intraductal carcinoma and other adverse pathological
features: a prospective clinicopathological study of 62 cases with emphasis on pathological
outcomes. Histopathology. 2019;75(3):346–353.
References
1. Gokden N, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ, Humphrey PA. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia
in needle biopsy as risk factor for detection of adenocarcinoma: current level of risk in screening
population. Urology. 2005;65:538-542.
2. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or
atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol. 2006;175:820-834.
3. Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR. Multifocal high grade
prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol.
2009;182:485-490.
4. Merrimen JL, Jones G, Srigley JR. Is high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia still a risk
factor for adenocarcinoma in the era of extended biopsy sampling? Pathology. 2010;42(4):325-
329.
17